Sant views industrial relations bill as missing the social context

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said yesterday that the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill failed to link the need for industrial restructuring with the social context.

He argued in parliament during the morning sitting that a bill such as this needed to be based on a plan, preferably agreed by the social partners, which extended beyond membership of the European Union

Dr Sant said many of the changes proposed in the bill were cosmetic or could have been accommodated in existing structures without much fanfare. Government speakers had spoken in the debate in a paternalistic manner about rights being "given" to workers.

Changes to the industrial relations structure had to be made according to current needs and in a way which protected the rights of workers and Malta`s industrial competitiveness.

The bill was being moved against a confused background. Over the past 15 years or so, many workers had actually seen protection reduced, particularly as they were forced to work reduced hours, on fixed contracts or in the black economy.

It was true that unionised workers enjoyed a certain level of protection, but protection for non-unionised workers had been in decline.

Dr Sant said no headway was being made in workers` participation, and this concept had not even been given recognition in the bill.

The bill showed how the government had no bearings other than towards EU membership, and it was only transposing EU rules to Maltese legislation. Surely the government should have a wider vision given Malta`s circumstances? Malta`s economic profile and labour sector were different to the EU`s. Malta was the only country where imports and exports accounted for more than the GDP, and tourism on its own contributed some 35 per cent of the GDP.

It was true that existing employment and industrial laws needed to be updated, but that had to be done in a wider context than EU membership.

What was de facto happening was that the power of trade unions was being contained in some sectors, while no solutions were being offered to the problems of the non-unionised sectors.

One had to decide how restructuring would take place. In the banking sector the yardstick of restructuring, particularly after the entry of HSBC, was only profitability for the shareholder. What about the other stakeholders, such as the workers and clients?

There was also lack of vision at the dockyard, where the government was only trying to downsize.

There needed to be a social contract on how restructuring would proceed if it was to be successful.

The industrial relations sector, too, had to be balanced between the interests of the shareholders and the other stakeholders. No talks were being held on how this balance would be maintained.

It would appear there was laissez faire with regard to restructuring, with developments taking place on their own in the industrial, tourism, services and labour sectors. This because the government was measuring restructuring only in terms of profitability.

A bill such as this should have been based on an agreed vision among the social partners, including the non-unionised sector. Change had to be based on a local economic and social plan, not just the EU requirements.

Earlier in the debate, Dr Michael Asciak (PN) said this bill was the result of years of social dialogue, and it would have a long-term effect on employment relations.

Adhering to a culture and tradition of legal and social rights such as those established by the European Union and the Council of Europe was a major step forward.

Indeed, the bill incorporated a large number of EU directives. This meant workers would enjoy more rights. The bill would also be effective in stopping abuse and exploitation.

Dr Asciak welcomed various aspects of the bill, including an extension of maternity leave, measures against harassment and discrimination and improvements to privileged pay.

Also positive was the way in which the EU`s working time directive would now apply to Maltese workers. Workers could not be forced to work more than a predetermined amount of overtime.

Reacting to remarks by Dr George Vella (MLP) about Malta losing its competitiveness, Dr Asciak said EU membership would open up an export market of 500 million people. This alone would help make Maltese industry more competitive. Such competitiveness could not depend on cheap labour but on a skilled and mobile labour force.

The EU would also provide financial and technical aid to the local labour force. This would lead to further development. An Industrial Free Trade Area with the EU, as advocated from time to time by the Opposition, would burden the workers without guaranteeing any rights and benefits.

Dr Michael Farrugia (MLP) insisted that labour legislation could only be effective if enforcement was made to deter and weed out abuse.

Dr Farrugia said the Labour Party had a long track record of improving workers` rights - and there had never been need for EU prompting for such rights to be enjoyed in Malta.

He insisted that the health sector needed to be more efficient. Workers should not have to wait for months and years for surgery, particularly as this hindered their activity.

He also referred to Dr Asciak`s claim that EU membership would open up Malta`s export market to 500 millon people, saying this was possible without EU membership.

Labour MP Louis Buhagiar complained that an increasing number of workers were being pressured to accept part-time jobs or to work on a contract basis. There were those, he said, who were warned by employers not to join a union. The bill said nothing about such situations.

Workers, he said, were also increasingly concerned about the future of the pensions system.

Dr Buhagiar called for increased training of workers to face the challenge of an increasingly competitive world.

He also insisted on effective action to curb illegal workers.

Nationalist MP Frans Agius said this bill actually showed the government`s social commitment, since improved labour sector conditions led to progress in the social sector too.

The opposition was insisting that this bill was the result of preparations for EU membership, yet it was actually implementation of electoral promises.

Proper anaylsis of the bill showed how this was an attempt by the government to control the neo-liberalism the world was moving towards.

Dr Agius said he agreed with the concept that whistle blowers, who reported irregularities by employers, would be given protection.

Dr Karl Chircop, opposition co-spokesman on social policy, said the law allowed too much discretion to the prime minister and the minister of social policy, effectively rendering the parliamentary debate on the bill useless.

The opposition would be voting against the bill not because it did not want workers` right to improve, but because the bill was half baked and, in some instances, detrimental to workers. It could have been presented better, and the opposition would move amendments in committee stage.

The opposition agreed that industrial relations laws needed updating, but not necessarily for the country to conform to EU legislation.

Dr Chircop said that vocational training was not being addressed well enough.

Once 80 per cent of those registering for employment were unskilled, why were 80 per cent of the ETC`s courses addressed to skilled workers?

Dr Chircop said he disagreed with the composition of the Employment Board since it would give an advantage to employers. It was being said that the chairman was to be independent. But who would appoint him, the minister? How could a chairman ever be independent if he was appointed by a minister?

Dr Chircop said the bill made no reference to any pro-rata bonus for part-timers. Another issue not adequately addressed was that of overtime for part-timers at the same pay rates as full-time employees.

There was also the issue of the probation period for workers on a definite contract. The opposition did not agree that a worker engaged on a three-month contract should also have a probation period.

Turning to the Guarantee Fund, he said that having such a fund was positive, but why was the onus being placed on workers to contribute to the fund from their wages? Workers were already paying enough tax and national insurance.

On the whistle blower concept, Dr Chircop said the law was not offering enough protection because of the ambiguity of the relevant clauses on protection for those who revealed irregularities.

At the end of his speech Dr Chircop said a group of nine nurses who in the 1990 were promoted from scale 12 to scale 11 were now being told that their promotion was incorrect, without reasons being given. They were also being asked to refund the wage increases they had been give through their promotion or face legal action.

This, Dr Chircop said, was shameful. One could not be given a promotion which was then taken back after a number of years. Why were the workers being made to assume responsibility for somebody else`s mistake? Responsibility, he said, should be assumed by whoever made the mistake.