PBS restructuring reassessed

It is now Minister Austin Gatt's turn to venture on the reorganisation of the national broadcasting station. I hope he will succeed where his predecessors failed.

One will no doubt recall the pompous launching of PBS Ltd immediately the company was incorporated to take over the responsibilities of the infamous Xandir Malta. I do remember slogans like "Great leaps ahead in public broadcasting" and "Quality programming" flying around in every corner of the island. Unfortunately, all such slogans were mere political gimmicks for public broadcasting still is what it was then, if not worse.

On that occasion, if my memory serves me well, (like Dr Gatt) the then minister responsible for broadcasting threatened to close the station if no agreement was reached with the workers' union. It is said that, on that occasion, not only did the trade union have it its way but actually got even more than it had demanded. Who will ever forget that the then minister responsible went "headhunting" as far west as the USA in search of the superman of his dream? I need not go into the story for I am sure it is still fresh in people's minds. That era is difficult to forget.

Soon after the government realised its blunder, subsequent ministers appointed commission after commission to make suggestions to restructure the state broadcasting station once again. Thousands of liri were also spent in consultancy services.

Despite the various studies/reports concluded, none of them came to fruition and with good reason. Notwithstanding the many local experts and foreigners involved neither of the said reports tackled the real problems facing public broadcasting. I spoke out, at the time, loud and clear and criticised the studies for not attending to the true problem PBS was (and still is) facing. I mean, the problem of good management or, better still, the lack of it. I had doomed all these studies to failure then and time has proved me right. I maintain that the financial ills the national broadcasting station is experiencing are consequential to incompetent management over the years.

In the case of the latest report by the so-called task force, I had described the recommendations as being inadequate and unprofessional. The system suggested for re-engaging current PBS staff members can best be described as shameful and suspicious. I also said, then, that certain recommendations put forward by the task force must have had some hidden agenda.

Here again time proved me right and three years down the line the restructuring proposals are still gathering dust on some shelf. If this isn't sheer waste of public funds, what is?

I hope Dr Gatt's attitude towards the workers' union will not be a sort of "take it or leave it" approach. The union has a firm commitment to honour its moral duties and obligations and these include the refusal to accept any discharges, no matter how few. Forced early retirement, or anything similar, is tantamount to discharges and no trade union worthy of its name would approve such tactics.

While I believe that a voluntary early retirement scheme would be quite in order, I have serious doubts whether this is advisable in view of the financial constraints both the company and the country are experiencing at this moment in time. While the government is considering every possible measure, including raising the retirement age for employees, to better the country's unsustainable financial situation, in the same breath it is advocating early retirement schemes for a variety of workers.

There seems to be consensus that the PBS problem was brought about by none other than the various governments themselves. Admittedly, some members of the various boards and some employees did not help much either. I believe they tended to aggravate matters. Hence, the government together with all the permanent workers have to assume full responsibility. Both sides should endeavour to solve the problem with the minimum of hardship to all concerned.

Dr Gatt had been most lenient with all those concerned, particularly with past board members, when he decided not to point fingers at anybody with regard to the mess PBS Ltd is in. Had the enterprise not been government-owned, surely directors would have had quite a hard time trying to face the shareholders/investors.

With a serious cut in expenditure, from top to bottom, the financial situation of the company could be eased with immediate effect. I believe the new chairman has already taken a few corrective measures (which his predecessors failed to take over the years) to curb expenditure and these are already bearing fruit. There are still other costs that need to be looked into. Hopefully, these will be addressed too.

As a point of departure, the government and the trade union should ask themselves some pertinent questions that could help them arrive at an amicable settlement. Why should directors and staff members be given perks when the company is up to its nose in debt? Is management, in general, being too generous where the company's funds are concerned? Are employees, in general, giving an honest day's work? Are employees (from top to bottom) permitted to walk in and out from their place of work as they deem fit? Was there any real need for certain travel abroad undertaken by directors, consultants and other staff members? These and other similar questions could make negotiations more meaningful. Honest answers to these, and other pertinent questions, should give reasoning a chance in the best interest of all.

While the minister found it so appropriate to tell us of the meagre sum the management allocated for training, he failed to inform the public of what foreign travel cost the company, say these last three years, and who availed himself of this travel. It would also have been interesting to learn of the travel arrangements the new board has in mind. Consultants' fees, whether paid by PBS Ltd or not and perks extended to eligible staff did not feature in the economic picture presented by the minister either.

The union is well aware that at the public broadcasting station there is more than full employment and that dead wood does exist within the four walls of Broadcasting House. It is also acknowledged by all concerned that the over-employed (so-called dead wood included) are the cause of political manoeuvres. Hence, the politicians must not shirk their responsibility.

With a serious redistribution of duties (similar to that carried out, recently, among the security staff), a curb on unnecessary spending (farming out of programmes, consultants' fees and fringe benefits included) and sensible demands by the workers' union, jobs can be saved.

In exchange for discharges the General Workers' Union could, say, agree on a moratorium on salary increases for a period of two to three years. After all, one cannot expect to have one's salary revised upwards when the company is on the point of bankruptcy. If at all, salaries need to be revised downwards to save jobs and to salvage the enterprise.

During the suggested moratorium period, and thereafter, the government and trade unions could agree on the introduction of an annual efficiency bonus, an initiative that could stimulate the idle employee and definitely serve as an incentive for the diligent.

The rest would depend on an efficient and effective board of directors supplemented by appropriate controls in all sectors and supported by a capable management team.

It is said that a particular TV programme that is being farmed out is costing PBS the handsome sum of some Lm4,000 a week. Once PBS is a commercial institution it would not be out of place for those responsible to inform the shareholder (that is the people at large) whether this was/is a viable programme in the first place. The same applies to all other programmes screened, particularly the more costly. Without divulging any commercial information the minister could have at least informed the public of what were the company's losses (if any) related to such programmes.

Contributors, which I believe total over 200, are costing PBS a considerable sum of money. How are these hired and fired? At the whim of someone playing god with people's assets? There seems to be no official set of procedures as to the engagement of this class of employees.

Definitely, contributors have to be laid off and their places, wherever possible, taken over by permanent staff who are under threat of dismissal. With the proper on-the-job-training and with the necessary dose of discipline, productions at PBS could improve a hundredfold in both quality and quantity.

Surprisingly enough, while PBS management blames over-employment for the station's disaster it still finds it proper to recruit permanent and part-time employees while its seasoned permanent staff are left resting on their laurels.

With a staff list of 184 employees, of whom 89 are said to be over 55, one can rely on redundancy through natural wastage. In this way the problem of over-employment could be resolved in a relatively short period of time and at no extra cost.

Assuming that an agreement to restructure PBS Ltd (somehow or other) is reached, what assurances is the government prepared to give to taxpayers to ensure that the situation will not revert to its original state? Before one knows it, PBS could embark on the recruitment of new staff (buddies or no buddies), particularly on the eve of an election.

I venture to say that PBS is also in dire need of a serious financial restructuring. This could very well follow immediately stage one is overcome. There are ways and means of achieving this objective. There appears to be no logic for the PBS workforce to occupy three separate buildings. A well-planned re-allocation of the various offices should free part of the company's property which, in turn, could be disposed of.