GWU's stand on opt-out clause

Mr Michael Falzon (The Sunday Times, May 22) decided to attack the MLP and the GWU. In so doing he also referred to the two GWU deputy general secretaries, Emmanuel Micallef and myself.

For Mr Falzon's benefit I would like to inform him that it was I who, on behalf of the GWU, voted Yes at the ECOSOC (EU's Economic and Social Committee) and, whether Mr Falzon likes it or not, I do not regret my vote.

Unfortunately, he not only committed the same mistake many others did but also contributed to further confuse the issue. Certainly, it is not my task here to speak for the MLP but definitely I have a duty to stand for the GWU which I am proud to represent.

It is very clear that, from his assertions, Mr Falzon has no strong arguments to support his position. I presume that he agrees with the position adopted by the European Commission. However, he did not defend this position but chose to attack the GWU by mentioning bygone instances to try to please those who do not see eye to eye with the GWU.

I am saying this because in its proposal the Commission says: "Member states will be able to apply the opt-out if it is expressly allowed under a collective agreement or an agreement between social partners and if the individual workers consent."

I trust this will not embarrass him!

As the GWU said from the very start, it is not the famous opt-out clause that the union is against, but the abuse that can be derived from such an option.

Since the Working Time Directive was initiated back in 1988 the opt-out clause has been abused by employers all over Europe, not least Malta. Mind you, not all local employers do so.

Those employers who negotiated (and are still doing so) such clauses with the GWU's representatives are faring quite well on this issue.

All we want to do is to eliminate any chances of abuse, which in some cases are rampant in Malta.

The position I voted for affirms: that the ECOSOC requests the EU Commission, the European Parliament and the EU Council, in revising the directive, to be mindful of the following:

The prime role of the parties to collective agreements in examining the reference period for calculating the weekly maximum working time and keeping it within the present bounds of the directive;

The guaranteeing of a basis for on-call time which is in harmony with the ruling of the ECJ and gives precedence to solutions achieved through collective agreement;

Measures for working time organisation that are conducive to greater compatibility of work and the family; and

Examination of the opt-out to determine whether its retention does not run counter to the spirit and aim of the directive itself.

One can easily note that the opt-out issue is not the sole matter; there are others. I am not ashamed of how I voted and I am convinced that many others would have done exactly the same.

Finally, I cannot let pass Mr Falzon's statement that "it seems that individuals do not exist in this socialist scenario... except when they are not GWU members".

This assertion amounts to nothing less than sheer absurdity, even more when he tried to justify his case by comparing the current issue to the discrimination case at Malta Drydocks, which was decided by our courts long ago.

On discrimination, I invite Mr Falzon to recall that the former Nationalist Party leader was found guilty by the courts for discriminating against GWU members during his tenure of office as Prime Minister.

Also recently, a number of government departments were declared at fault for discriminating against GWU members and as I write this reply only God knows how many other GWU members are now being discriminated against.

Nonetheless, the GWU stood and will always stand by its members in times of need. My advice to Mr Falzon is not to throw stones if he's living in a glass house.

The GWU will continue to defend its members individually through collectiveness. And for this we have nothing to be ashamed of.

Mr Parnis is deputy general secretary of the GWU.