Workers need to be told about their new rights - Frendo

The government was urged yesterday to make the workers aware of the changes being ushered in by new legislation on employment and industrial relations.

Nationalist MP Michael Frendo, who made the appeal in parliament, said the new rights listed in the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill needed to be made known to all workers once the bill became law.

Dr Frendo said it was shameful that the Labour opposition would vote against this bill. It would have been wiser had the opposition decided to vote for the bill on second reading, when the principle was discussed, and vote against specific clauses or move amendments during the committee stage.

This bill was lifting Maltese law to the high social standards of the European Union and other organisations, such as the International Labour Organisation.

Among the positive features of this law was the way privileged pay was being raised and how, in the case of bankruptcies, workers had to be paid before other creditors. In line with EU law, the bill also provided for the creation of a Guarantee Fund to ensure that workers received the payments due to them when their employer collapsed without any assets. The bill also introduced protection for workers from mergers and take-overs.

The opposition was saying it would vote against this bill, but its reason were vague. For example, which service of the list of essential services given in the bill, did the opposition consider as not being essential?

Parliamentary Secretary Antoine Mifsud Bonnici accused the opposition of hypocrisy for opposing this bill. The opposition was the least qualified to speak on sympathy strikes for one could remember what had happened to bank employees after they went on strike in support of teachers under the Labour government.

As for the opposition`s complaints on the list of persons considered essential, he could remember how 25 years ago during the doctors` strike, a bill was passed through all stages in one sitting in which then prime minister Dom Mintoff insisted it would be the government alone which would decide what was considered essential. At the time doctors were not only locked out of public hospitals, but they were also banned from working in private clinics without ministerial authorisation. Had it been for the Labour government, the doctors, who were workers too, would have suffered hunger.

There was no doubt that this bill would be greatly beneficial to the workers.

He felt more needed to be done to help those aged over 40 to find jobs, even though the Employment and Training Corporation was active in this sector. It was subjects such as this which the opposition should tackle instead of outrightly opposing this bill.

Mr Joseph Cuschieri (MLP) said the government was showing lack of confidence in the Maltese when it said that this bill was prompted by the need to align legislation with EU requirements. Malta had in the past made great strides forward in workers` rights without anybody`s direction, and it could continue to do so.

There were countries which were not in the EU and which had introduced better conditions for workers than EU countries.

Indeed, the situation in Malta was already much better than EU regions such as Sicily.

The opposition, he said, was voting against the bill because it did not agree with two of the clauses. It did not agree with how whole sectors could not go out on strike because their service was considered essential. This list was exaggerated.

On a point of order, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said an ILO document spoke of services which were deemed as essential and the bill listed those services. He was prepared to table this document.

Mr Cuschieri said that Malta was not bound to follow any guidance from anyone. It should do what was best for it.

Labour MP Silvio Parnis said that progress in the country was achieved by the workers and not because workers followed the advice of their rulers.

The world, he said, did not consist of just the European Union and Malta had to have good relations with all countries.

Mr Parnis said workers` rights included job security and job creation and the government was failing in both.

The Labour MP said the minimum wage was too low and people on such a wage were living in poverty.

Transport Minister Censu Galea noted that while members of the opposition had claimed that unemployment was rising, in sectors such as construction, Malta was lacking the workers it needed.

There was also a severe shortage of workers needed for road works and for agriculture.

Mr Galea said Maltese workers today enjoyed unprecedented rights and trade unions enjoyed complete freedom to express their opinions without the retribution of the past.

Each and every Maltese worker, whatever his category and circumstances, should have his mind at rest that his rights as a worker would be safeguarded and enforced.

He augured that this law would guarantee to workers the best possible working conditions and safer work places.

Dr George Vella (MLP) said it was the Labour Party which had worked hard in favour of Maltese workers. In the past the workers were considered only as being tools deserving no rights and benefits. It was the Labour Party which had introduced the minimum wage and many work-associated benefits.

This bill, he said, had taken too long to be moved. Contrary to what had been said, nothing in the bill was new - it was only a refinement of what was already in place.

If it hadn`t been for the EU several bills, including this one, would not have been drafted.

Legislation was useless unless it was backed by enforcement. Parliament recently enacted the Occupational Health and Safety Law, for example, yet one today still saw many workers who did not take even basic precautions, such as wearing a helmet.

Women attending job interviews were being asked whether they were married and whether they had children. Others were asked whether they owned a car. Was this really relevant to employers?

Dr Vella said he wondered how worthwhile this debate was when the bill gave extensive discretionary powers to the minister.

Interjecting, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that to date the Conditions of Employment Regulation Act was not applicable to public sector workers and it was an innovation that the prime minister could use his discretion so that the rights under the law, such as maternity leave, would apply to civil servants.

Continuing, Dr Vella said it was the government`s duty to ensure Malta had the right economic climate needed for foreign investment and job creation. Yet the Chamber of Commerce, the Central Bank and a recent report by the European Commission had warned that the country risked losing its competitive edge in international markets.

EU members such as Germany were investing in North African countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Egypt. Was the climate of uncertainty in Malta as high as in these countries? The reason, clearly, was not political uncertainty but lack of competitiveness. This was destroying the possibility of job creation.

To make things worse, if Malta joined the EU, the Maltese would have to compete for work with EU workers in certain sectors such as tourism and the self-employed.

The Opposition would vote against this bill as a sign of protest and not because it was not in favour of guaranteeing workers` rights.

The Labour Party was fighting to safeguard workers` rights by objecting to arrangements with the EU which would enable foreign workers to steal jobs from local workers.

History showed that the Labour Party in collaboration with the trade union movement had always fought for the workers.