Museums closed, Confintesa: "absurd, but very few museum employees asked to open"

We end our conversations with civil service unions in cultural heritage, after speaking with CGIL, CISL and UIL, with answers from Giuseppe Zicarelli, Cultural Heritage coordinator of Confintesa FP.

On the closures of museums, it was said that the decision was made to limit opportunities for contagion, but there are studies that say that in observance of the measures to contain contagion, they are the safest places ever, and after all, the experience of Spain (where several museums have never closed) teaches that the opening of cultural venues could easily coexist with the containment of Covid-19. What is your position on the issue of indiscriminate museum closures?

Our union organization was not one of the signatories to either the government/union anti Covid memorandum of understanding (signed by CGIL-CISL-UIL) or the then MiBACT sector agreement for a very simple reason, since we were not involved in the agreement process and thus in the formative moment of the same. Beyond this merely formal aspect, going into the merits and looking at the overall scenario of the March-April 2020 era, it then seemed absurd to us that the physical places of cultural enjoyment with museums in the lead, where it was possible to capillary control and implement all the measures that are feared, from distancing to personal protective equipment for workers and visitors, would be closed and at the same time shopping malls and other uncontrolled and uncontrollable public gathering places and nightlife would instead remain open. Our small union organization has from the very beginning called for both central ministerial and peripheral levels where they exist, to take advantage of this “historic” opportunity for a quality offer to nearby tourism and visitors and residents. For us, museums are living organisms with which citizens must interact and be able to feel at home in that healthy process of identity mirroring and appropriation and recognition. In addition to a historical place of memory, noble and artistic, for us museums should be a natural extension of one’s living and why not, also cultural workshops, permanent laboratories of the evolutionary construction of one’s knowledge in constant progress.

Why do you think there has not been at least a difference between large and small museums? There are large and highly toured museums in the historic centers of large cities (such as the Uffizi, the Egyptian Museum in Turin or the civic museums in Venice, for example), but there are also small provincial museums, easily reached by the public and workers, and already little visited in their own right.

No differentiation has been made on the treatment of museum closures for the simple reason that at the central level they are all treated the same from both an institutional and a management point of view. I fully agree that at least the small museums in the pandemic context could have been left untethered from the mega generalist logics and perhaps allow the local authorities together with the directors, on a case-by-case basis and in close correlation with the local health situation, the decision on whether to possibly keep them open in specific ways or close them. That insane generalism and centralism that kills even if not especially Culture and cultural institutions. Incidentally, it was precisely for the big museums that we had asked to “calibrate” a specific cultural offer on residents since they are notoriously always crowded and evicted by hordes of tourists, it seemed to us and seems to be a welcome opportunity for redemption and due attention.

For big cities, it was said that the problem is mainly in transportation and especially affects workers. Have you ever asked the ministry or the entities that run the museums to have employees reimbursed for travel by their own means so as to avoid having them take public transportation?

Given the chronic and continuous shortages of funds, you have not dared at all to ask for specific resources for autonomous and specific mobility for Mic workers, but I recognize that it could have been and is an excellent viaticum for the thinning of crowded densities of public transportation. Another fact that should not be overlooked, however, is that in certain areas and if practiced on a large scale, the use of private vehicles in addition to further burdening traffic certainly does not stand as ethically and environmentally sustainable. As an interim and well-designed measure especially in the hourly articulation it certainly could be a viable option and a measure to help reduce workers’ subjective risk.

Have there been any public employees who have asked your union to open museums? If so, in what percentage?

Many of our colleagues who identify with and militate in our union have fought first against closures and secondly for rational reopenings compatible with the relevant anti-county plans that each institution has in place. Especially in the Superintendencies and Restoration Institutes there have been more than half of the workers demanding and asking for a greater presence in their workplaces and this because of a burden of responsibility and healthy work ethic they are proud bearers of, while in the museum realities there have been very few indeed, in the maximum order of 5 percent of the staff asking for or demanding opening or not closing.

What do you think needs to be done to open a museum safely?

Already all the plans and protocols adopted by each individual institution are very strict and arch-safe for the protection of both the users and the workers; if one wanted to further strengthen the measures, it would be enough to increase even more the social distancing and the density of maximum crowding per facility and specifically per museum portions.

Have you lobbied or are you lobbying the Ministry of Culture to ask that everything be reopened as soon as possible, logically safely and in accordance with current protocols?

Our organization has been in the forefront on this issue as well, and since times not suspected, arousing hilarity and nervousness in both the ministry’s top management team and the top political wing. A not insignificant note on this aspect is that Minister Franceschini has never wanted to meet with the unions to concert the measures that were feared; even more serious is that neither at the consultative level has he ever activated all the internal bodies at his disposal. Just think of the Superior Council of Cultural Heritage and the varied and highly qualified Technical and Scientific Committees, Single Committee of Guarantee, and so on.

Museums closed, Confintesa: "absurd, but very few museum employees asked to open"

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.