GWU president's article was not 'censored'

I do not intend to start a polemic in your newspaper. It is my right and duty as GWU president, however, to reply to unfounded allegations in my regard made in your report last Sunday (pp. 7 and 96).

With reference to the secretary-general Tony Zarb's alleged censorship of my article, it is an established and agreed procedure between all GWU officials to have their writings in newspapers discussed between the writer and the secretary-general. This has now been the practice for a relatively long time.

It is true that on Wednesday, September 18, my article in L-Orizzont entitled Ghaliex Proprju Issa? (Why Now?) was intended to have an extended version regarding Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. But before it left the editor's office and the information office of Union Press and went to print, I enquired whether Mr Zarb had seen its contents and in fact I gave him a computer printout.

Mr Zarb and I had a discussion as we always do and on my part it was agreed and decided solely by me that all reference to Dr Mifsud Bonnici be omitted from the article. This was done by agreement and it was definitely not an imposition or censorship.

Regarding the report that, according to your sources, a delegation from Union Print was toying with the idea of making representations to me, I wish to say that I never rejected anyone. I can understand and sympathise with their environment because I too work in a printing press that makes losses.

As vice-president and now president of the union, I never toyed with the idea of closing down Union Print and keep Union Press only. Instead, I always defended and justified their rights and existence.

As a matter of fact I was one of the promoters who insisted on the institution of a purchasing committee whereby a considerable amount of money was saved and allegations of suspicious behaviour eliminated. Together, we have established an honest and transparent purchasing procedure.

Regarding the worker-director issue I must state that unlike all the other union subsidiaries, Union Press and Print have a clause in their collective agreement that clearly states that they should have 50 per cent representation on the Press Board. It is not and never has been the GWU's intention to go beyond what the collective agreement states, but when the formation of all the boards was being approved by the National Council, the Union Press and Print representative on the Council did not indicate this clause to the council members.

What is asked of the Union Press and Print is to reconsider this clause only if agreement is reached. Otherwise, what the collective agreement says, holds.

Another aspect that all concerned should be aware of is that all restructuring exercises including the employment of a new managerial consultancy (for the first time paid by the GWU) had the approval of all the board members including the 50 per cent representation of the workers themselves. The board members representing the workers know that the present GWU administration has given them all its confidence to move forward towards a prosperous future.

I repeat what I said in my inaugural speech. I shall never be like a patron saint's statue, to taken out of its niche once a year, given a thorough brushing up at the front and back, paraded in the parish streets with bands and petards and locked up again for another year.

But this does not either mean that if I intend to criticise someone, or to pull up someone, I have to cause that person irritation, mental stress or a stomach ulcer. My style is that I would quietly draw the individual's attention to his misdemeanour and without any fuss or sounding of trumpets ensure that things return to normal. To lead is not to dictate but to bring awareness and understanding. Strength is by persuasion and not by fist-pounding.

As I already stated, I do not wish to start a debate. This was only a clarification of intended facts that had the aim to halt the progress that the GWU is determined to achieve for its numerous members.