Worker-directors

The year 2004 saw the demise of two workers' directors.

At the Freeport following privatisation, the practice of having a worker director, as was the case when the government was the major shareholder, was discontinued. The same happened at MITTS. Maybe these two companies still perceive the worker director as a Trojan horse that may undermine the organisation from within.

At a time when we are aligning ourselves to the European model and conforming to the EU directives which are continuously espousing the principles of workers' involvement at the workplace, this policy seems to be contradictory. The ethics that figure in business practice acknowledge shareholders' interest and stakeholders' concern.

A good company can make the two compatible and reconcilable. The employees are the major stakeholders of the firm. Giving employees a say in the running of the enterprise through a representative at board level may defuse the inherent conflict arising out of the "us and them" dichotomous view and at the same time convey an image of openness and transparency that is the underlying principle of corporate governance. By the same token it may enhance the legitimacy of the firm in the eyes of the public at large who are increasingly becoming distrustful of the principles governing the operations of business firms.

The shareholders of Maltacom seem to believe in this logic, for in the extraordinary general meeting held at the Hilton Malta Conference Centre on January 27 they decided to retain the role of worker director in the eventuality of privatisation. This news was really refreshing after witnessing a decrease in the number of worker directors in the last few years. Hopefully, the other public utilities that may eventually be privatised will follow the example of Maltacom.

On the other hand the government may well revise its policy and set an example to other firms by reinstating the worker director in the statutory bodies forming part of the public sector.