Edwin Calleja, director general of the Federation of Industry can rest assured (June 17) that I have carefully read the document issued to the media by the Malta Federation of Industry and other employer organisations and that I am not misinterpreting the document's thrust.

I have also read other related articles and in particular that referring to 'employers organisations' and 'industry sources' speaking to a local weekly business paper and published in the June 6-12 edition. Actually in my contribution (June 14) I was quoting verbatim from this article that "the introduction of legislation regarding occupational health and safety would be a major cost. In the light of the current economic situation, some are concerned that the costs could prove to be detrimental to the company from a financial perspective". I am sure that Mr Calleja knows about this article.

My comment is that the five employer organisations use the term 'occupational health and safety' interchangeably with 'working conditions' as though they have the same meaning. I beg to differ.

Thus, employer organisations state that increases in labour costs result from the introduction of occupational health and safety measures..., then go on to assure us that employers are not against improving working conditions, although employers had emphasised that the key to better working conditions was higher productivity!

In other words, the argument is that 'occupational health and safety' should be the result of higher productivity! Moreover these same organisations view their introduction as simply a measure to minimise the incidence of injuries at the place of work. What an egocentric way to look at it!

I assure Mr Calleja that the workers see the inclusion of 'occupational health and safety' as a belated right that safeguards, literally, their health and safety at the workplace. Those companies who simply cannot 'afford' the cost of their implementation do not deserve to hire workers in the first place!