Government moves holidays amendment

The measure announced in the budget whereby public holidays falling on weekends will no longer be added to workers' leave was moved in Parliament yesterday as members of the national council of the General Workers' Union looked on from the Strangers' Gallery.

Parliametary Secretary Tonio Fenech, who moved the measure as an amendment to the Budget Measures Bill, insisted in a brief speech that this measure was aimed at raising productivity while continuing to respect national holidays.

The amendment provides that with effect from January 1, 2005, when a national or public holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday it shall be not deemed to be a public holiday for the purposes of entitling any person to an additional day of vacation leave.

Mr Fenech said that as a result of this amendment, four public holidays falling on Saturdays or Sundays this year would not be added to workers' leave entitlement.

He stressed that for any other purpose, such days would continue to be considered as public holidays. One could not, for example, say that there would be no Christmas this year. A person who had to work on such days would still be remunerated at the rates normally paid for public holidays.

Karl Chircop (MLP) said the government had, before the last election, promised the people heaven on earth but was now playing a very different tune.

He could not understand why the government was amending this law and not the Employment Act. Indeed, this measure undermined the Employment Act, which was enacted last year after wide-ranging debate.

This measure would have hardly any impact on productivity and competitiveness. That was why the government had already made plans to borrow Lm150 million.

This measure, however, was unquestionably detrimental to workers, who were seeing ongoing erosion of their working and living conditions. One of the leading export firms, for example, was considering paying workers at a flat rate for overtime.

The government was reducing holidays on the pretext of wanting to raise productivity, but it was also attacking the workers' standard of living, through increases in the price of kerosene, diesel, electricity, water, bread and the bus service. The workers had also seen an increase in VAT, the introduction of the eco-tax, higher tariffs on the Gozo ferries, a new tax on mobile telephony, higher taxation on second-hand cars and inherited property and greater deductions from the pensions of elderly people resident in old people's homes.

The pension system was also under threat.

The current situation was very different from pre-election claims that there would be jobs for all. Unemployment was continuing to rise.

The workers were seeing their take-home pay shrink even as prices continued to rise sharply.

This was not something which the opposition could be quiet about. The workers, Dr Chircop said, were suffering real hardship, which was why the opposition was holding protests.

The past week had also seen an all-out attack on the shipyards, the intention clearly being for the shipyards to be closed down. It appeared that the government did not want to attract work to the shipyards. This was how the government treated the workers.

Dr Chircop said a Labour government would review the way the different sectors of the population were being taxed, because under this government it was always the middle and lower classes which were being made to shoulder the burden of taxation.

Rather than reduce holidays, the governent needed to rein in its spending. It had squandered taxpayers' money on Dar Malta, the purchase of Air Malta's RJ70s and the expenditure of Lm250 million on a new hospital that would have half the bed capacity of St Luke's Hospital, which was currently overcrowded.

Dr Chircop praised the GWU, the Malta Union of Midwives and Nurses and other unions which had sought to prevent the government's measure. The failure of the talks held in recent weeks was not their fault. The government had sought to divide the unions, but it would not succeed in the long run. In the run-up to the next election the MLP would evaluate the situation and if workers' conditions continued to be eroded, it would seek to compenate the workers to improve their living standards.

Carmelo Abela (MLP) said this amendment meant that the workers would have four less days for their families - in complete contrast to what the government was saying about quality family time.

The PN was implementing what it had never promised, but not what it had promised in its electoral programme.

Unless the workers were united, the government would steamroll over them. This measure was not an electoral promise and the government had no right to move it in Parliament.

What impact would this measure have on collective agreements and on non-unionised workers?

The governemnt was claiming that by reducing holidays it would raise productivity. What study had the government conducted in this regard? How big would the alleged productivity gain be? Would it be production or productivity that would rise? It would appear that the former was the case, when what was needed was an increase in productivity.

Since the workers this year would have to work for four more days, there could be situations, such as in firms planning to expand, where there would be less need to recruit additional workers.

The real question, Mr Abela said, was whether Malta was really facing up to the competitiveness issue. This problem would not be solved by reducing workers' leave. Competitiveness had been lost because of excessive bureacracy, about which nothing was being done, because of government-induced costs which government agencies, departments, authorities and companies were continuing to impose, and due to taxation, which was too heavy a burden. The government needed to review its fiscal and taxation policies. Easing taxation would probably lead to better returns by boosting the economy.

It was a pity, Mr Abela said, that there had been no agreement among the social partners on a social pact. He had been told that while the social partners had disagreed about the measure to reduce workers' leave, there was agreement on several other points. So why was the government not implementing what had been agreed upon?

The burden should not be borne by the workers alone. What about employers, particularly the bigger ones? It was clear that several large companies were continuing to evade tax and national insurance payments.

Mr Abela referred to the education sector. Education was one of the keys to improving national competitiveness and therefore needed to be given greater importance. Far too many students were leaving school early or ending up without any skills. The Malta Council for Science and Technology had been practically left to fend for itself, despite its importance.

It was easy for the governemnt to move laws in parliament, but it would be far better for the governemnt to reconsider its policies before it was too late, Mr Abela concluded.

The debate continues today.