Industrial action by right!

Every time the General Workers Union resorts to industrial action, all hell breaks loose especially if that action is directed against a government entity, corporation or agency. Certain sections of the media then try hard to warp the picture so as to give the impression that the GWU is trying to thwart the government. As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy.

I strongly believe that some journalists, more often than not, instead of expressing their own views, write what is dictated to them by pro-PN and/or government spokesmen even if they know that the true facts are distorted.

But as long as the writing is against the GWU, all is well. How can it be that, for certain columnists, anything the GWU does is always wrong? After all, if the government really believes that its policies are the right ones, why does it then panic so much when confronted? No wonder that certain sections of the media are fed a lot of inaccuracies. To my mind, professional journalists are those who try to investigate and search for the truth.

Unions go for an industrial action, on a small or large scale, according to circumstances. Industrial action is taken only as a last resort. This weapon is always used with caution and only if the employer constantly and capriciously ignores the demands the union makes on behalf of its members.

Any person who really knows what goes on in industrial relations is aware that most often the Union begins with a partial action as a means of putting the employer under pressure to finally move from his rigid position.

Several employers have come to realise and to understand the union's position, and they discuss matters with the union, leading to a final and amicable agreement.

I cannot say the same for Enemalta Corporation. One of its major faults is its excessive bureaucracy. Thus, its discussions with the union take months before a solution is reached. As a workers' leader, I admit that there are instances where the workers' claims are not justified but equally, employers are not always right and that is why discussions take place - to settle pending issues and differences.

The GWU can no longer accept that it takes an eternity for Enemalta to agree to most of its demands, especially those that have been pending for so long to the detriment of the workers, and worse, in breach of the collective agreement. But then, when it comes to the implementation of its own measures, the corporation insists on urgency and haste.

In the recent dispute with Enemalta, or rather its Aviation Section, I had insisted that the issues were blown up because of the government's direct involvement and interference. I am convinced that had the issues been left to the corporation and the GWU to handle, they might not have escalated to such an extent. Past experience shows that dialogue between the two always led to the settlement of issues.

However, the sheer bureaucracy engulfing Enemalta made it almost impossible to reach agreement in a reasonable time. And maybe the minister responsible was unaware that to get things going in the corporation, the GWU very often had to put much pressure on the management. Other-wise, everything would have been left pending, without decisions being taken.

In the recent problem that cropped up it was obvious that Minister Austin Gatt was unaware of what was going on in Enemalta's Gas Division, otherwise he wouldn't have been so quick to blame the workers for that problem and label them inefficient.

As the minister responsible, we expect Dr Gatt to be regularly kept informed, even of the shortcomings of the corporation, which of course, were the main cause for the recent gas shortage. The minister must also remember that certain political decisions, especially where workers are concerned, create unavoidable precedents, but it seems that such a situation is to prevail as long as it suits him and his colleagues.

A clear example is the corporation management's insistence that shift workers are no longer required. At the same time Cabinet ministers push in new employees to work directly on shift within Enemalta.

Mr Michael Falzon, writing in The Sunday Times of March 27, saw fit to dedicate his article to me. He said he does not know me personally. I too do not know him personally but being from Zejtun, I know quite a few people from my locality who used to work for him when he was still in Parliament.

Not knowing him however does not lessen my satisfaction that Mr Falzon is a regular reader of my contributions in L-Orizzont even if my articles do not go down well with him. If not, he could not have felt the need to put me and my writings at the centre of his attack.

Maybe Mr Falzon is one of those who think they are always right. What he thinks of himself is his own affair, but I must remind him that if he had always been right in his political career, why was he then rejected more than once by the electorate?

Does he have an answer to this? There is no place in contemporary trade unionism for people like Gejtu Mercieca, Mr Falzon stated. I reply with another question: Is there a place in Maltese politics for people like Mr Falzon? It's for the people to judge. I feel however that as a trade unionist, I can fare better than Mr Falzon the politician. If Mr Falzon doubts this, I advise him to go and ask the workers I represent at the various workplaces.

Maybe Mr Falzon's concept of trade unionism is taking the workers for a ride by raising their expectations with empty promises. I do hope he accepts that I know a bit more than him about trade unions and of how things developed lately at Enemalta. At least, I was part of it all.

In fact, I am surprised how Mr Falzon concluded that the GWU, or rather the Chemicals, Energy and Printing Section which I lead, took its decisions in a hasty and capricious manner. Does he think the GWU acted irresponsibly when, for the past two years it has patiently waited for Enemalta to act on pending issues? And mind you, the corporation's management was evidently and constantly in breach of the agreement with the GWU.

Before commenting on the issue, Mr Falzon should have made sure he had the correct information and assessed the views of both parties involved. No wonder I now consider him among those who are not credible in their writings.

That the government intends to bulldoze over the GWU is no secret. It clearly shows it wants to adopt Thatcherite methods. The constant malicious attacks against the GWU are a clear example. But Malta is not the UK, and surely the GWU will not allow itself to go through what the British trade unions have been through. Of this Mr Falzon can rest assured.

The GWU has made it quite clear, and there is no need for me to repeat it, that the fundamental right of industrial action is here to stay, no matter what kind of threats are made. The right of industrial action is part of a healthy industrial relations system and the GWU is prepared to go all the way to defend this right. What is needed is for the government to accept and admit that by suspending GWU members from work for participating in official industrial actions it did not only commit a grave mistake but also made a mockery of the democracy it claims to champion.

The GWU has always acted in the best interest of the workers and it will continue to do so, no matter the circumstances.

Mr Mercieca is the secretary of the Chemical, Energy and Printing Section of the General Workers Union.

gmercieca@gqu.org.mt