Italy to Hold Referendum

Have you got a question?

Italy to Hold Referendum on June 8–9: Citizens to Vote on Labour Rights and Citizenship.

On Sunday and Monday, June 8–9, 2025, Italian citizens will head to the polls for a major national referendum. Voters will be asked to decide on five critical referendum questions concerning labour rights and citizenship — a vote that may reshape Italy’s legal framework on employment and immigration.

The initiative, primarily driven by trade unions and civil society organizations — most notably the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL), one of the country’s most prominent and historic labour unions — aims to repeal several provisions introduced by recent labour reforms, especially those enacted under the controversial Jobs Act.

The referendum follows years of political and social tension stemming from reforms that, according to critics, have eroded workers’ rights in favour of increased labour market flexibility. Among the most debated aspects is Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute (Statuto dei Lavoratori), which originally provided for strong protections against unlawful dismissal. The current vote is widely regarded as an attempt to restore those safeguards and rebalance power in the employer-employee relationship.

The Five Referendum Questions

1. Unlawful Dismissals and the “Jobs Act” Employment Contract

Voters will decide whether to repeal the contratto a tutele crescenti (progressive protection contract) introduced by the Jobs Act. This contract provides monetary compensation (ranging from 6 to 36 months’ salary) in the event of unlawful dismissal, while limiting reinstatement to only a few specific cases. The proposed repeal would restore broader reinstatement rights for unlawfully dismissed workers.

2. Compensation Caps for Unlawful Dismissals in Small Enterprises

This question addresses the current cap of six months’ salary for compensation in cases of unlawful dismissal within businesses employing up to 15 workers. The proposed change would eliminate this cap, allowing compensation to more closely reflect the worker’s length of service.

3. Fixed-Term Employment Contracts

The proposal seeks to reintroduce the requirement to state a “justified reason” (causale) for all fixed-term employment contracts from day one. Under the current legislation, employers are allowed to issue such contracts without a causale during the first 12 months.

4. Joint Liability in Contracting and Workplace Safety

Voters are asked whether to repeal a provision that currently exempts principal companies from joint liability for accidents or occupational illnesses arising from “specific risks” inherent to the subcontractor’s activity. The repeal would restore the principal contractor’s joint liability in such cases, enhancing protections for workers in subcontracted roles.

5. Residency Requirement for Citizenship

The final question proposes reducing the minimum period of legal residency required to apply for Italian citizenship from ten years to five, thus easing access to citizenship for long-term residents.

Legal and Electoral Framework

As an abrogative referendum, the vote seeks to repeal existing laws or parts thereof. For any of the five questions to be deemed valid, voter turnout must exceed the quorum threshold of 50% plus one of eligible voters nationwide. The referendum represents a pivotal moment for Italian legislative policy, particularly in the areas of labour law and civil rights. Citizens are encouraged to inform themselves thoroughly about the content and implications of each referendum item to cast an informed and conscious vote. A referendum not to be underestimated, as the outcome will have highly practical implications. Italian voters will help shape the country’s political direction—one that may not necessarily align with the current government’s stance. Referendums serve precisely this function: to remove certain issues from the political arena and entrust the normative decision-making process directly to the popular will.

As is often the case, and particularly in this instance, the subjects at stake are complex. It is not easy for the average citizen to fully grasp the legal and technical nuances of the matters on which they are asked to vote. For this reason, many observers anticipate that the required quorum may not be reached, which would render the referendum invalid.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that citizens are not legally or morally obliged to possess in-depth knowledge of legal frameworks—especially in areas as specialized as those addressed by the current referendum. Nor can it be assumed that they have the means, skills, or even the willingness to independently seek out such information.

This creates a significant risk of exposure to partisan messaging and propaganda, with both sides of the debate promoting simplified or ideologically charged narratives. The presence of five separate questions further complicates the picture, requiring voters to process a substantial amount of information.

This raises a broader question: is journalistic coverage sufficient? Are talk shows and social media platforms adequate tools for conveying the complexity of these issues? And ultimately, will the votes cast—or not cast—be truly informed?