Cases meriting consideration on humanitarian grounds

I followed the discussion and agreement on the shipyards with a heavy heart. Even though the agreement may be considered as a necessary evil, it is clear it was going to upset the workers of both enterprises.

Now that a number have applied for early retirement, attention also focuses on those who are not going to be happy either at the shipyards or at the alternative public sector jobs found for them. For, however good the intentions may be, there is always going to be the possibility of having some cases that could be considered unjust and, therefore, meriting consideration.

I don't know whether it was wise or not for the General Workers' Union not to insist to take part in the selection process, at least as an observer, to make sure the transfers were made without any prejudice. Maybe the union had its own valid reasons for doing so.

At this stage, we do not know what the GWU is prepared to do except following the court's decision, although it has become known that the union is insisting that former drydocks worker Reuben Mallia who, with Franco Spiteri, was severely injured in the Um el Faroud explosion in 1995, should be retained on the books of Malta Shipyards Ltd.

But I suggest that the section's secretary should make a list of those men who are not going to work happily at the shipyards or at Industrial Projects and Services Ltd. From this list, one would then be able to sift those cases that truly merit consideration on, at least, humanitarian grounds.

The government, management and the union should agree to make exceptions to genuine cases. Some could be exchanged for others. For example, the man who complained publicly about being retained when he had been asking for retirement for ages due to his poor health could be easily exchanged for a much younger, stronger man. If a couple of such cases are resolved amicably, this, surely, would not create any difficulty to the restructuring of the shipyards.

Both the Malta Shipbuilding doctor and, more so, the worker-director should have been retained to keep to a minimum the tension and anxiety such restructuring creates. If, then, there is a valid reason for them to be transferred, let such reason be known.

Both dockyard victims of the Um el Faroud explosion should also have been retained so long as they are giving a day's work. The two were severely injured at work and wanted to remain at the drydocks. It would be an insult to throw them out with the lot. They are justly feeling hurt.

At least people like Mr Mallia and Mr Spiteri, still both young at 32, should have been properly approached and their position explained in a sensitive, humanitarian way. If there are good reasons why they cannot be given any choice, this should have been explained to them properly. To send them a written explanation at home without listening to what they have to say and with no possibility, I imagine, of them retaining their post, is unfair.

From what I read, no consideration seems to have been given to humanitarian cases. There could be sick or old workers who were kept on even though they might have wanted to take early retirement or, vice-versa, young and strong, hard-working men who might have wanted to stay at the 'yards but who were transferred. I do not believe these amount to many and had tact been used in the selection process, the end result might have been satisfactory to all.

Hundreds of millions of liri have been spent over the past 30 years in attempts to put the drydocks on sound foundations but without ever seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. With the radical moves being taken now in agreement with the union, it is hoped that the shipyards will become sustainable. Still, we have yet to wait and see if they succeed in the attempt as competition is strong indeed.

Restructuring at the shipyards was overdue. The shipyards still have a role to play as a heavy industry where trades could also be taught by excellent instructors and tradesmen. Many engineers now working at the power stations, Freeport and other enterprises and factories learned the trade at the shipyards.

In a way, it is true that Malta cannot continue to subsidise heavily the shipyards (and other similar industries for that matter) but, on the other hand, we must not lose this asset completely.

Apart from the fact that it would be unwise to increase the subsidy to a bankrupt enterprise indefinitely, we know that as we are now joining the EU, the government is bound by a timeframe (2008) to cut all subsidies.

In the past, many blamed the workers for the heavy losses incurred by the shipyards but is it not true that the shipyards have always been used by the government as a safety valve for the unemployed and, for many years, as a political tool to take advantage of?