The way forward

Dark clouds are gathering on the industrial relations front. This is a periodical event in Malta; history shows that its frequency occurs depending on Government's hue. To make matters worse the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development is not meeting as it used to do to investigate economic and social problems and attempt to preclude potential entrenched positions.

The new confrontation between Government and the General Workers' Unions on the presumed Government's duty to provide alternative employment to those adversely hit either by privatisation or redundancies in government-owned enterprises has already appeared on the horizon and is rapidly nearing harbour.

Despite the fact that modern democracies provide civic rights to citizens in general and employees in particular, trade unions in Malta are in a position to pronounce and insist on discriminatory new procedures and newly created rights and benefits to their members; the difference arises with workers in the private or public sectors.

Discriminatory practices are always bad but enjoying more rights is not a bad idea in itself as long as it does not lead to long-term national instability in human resources development and economic growth.

Understandably, trade unions have to show that they are prepared to take the hard way and the long road to impress on their members that their rights are more than safeguarded. In this way trade unions are in a position to prove their worth in the labour market and encourage more workers to enrol with them.

Since in recent years membership in trade unions has taken a downward trend, union leaders will certainly do their utmost to ensure that they will not lose further ground. For them, the most important consideration is the immediate and short-term positive results that they can achieve.

Their target is to maintain, at least, workers' status quo, and do their utmost to improve it as well.

The experience gained in the Malta Drydocks venture when the GWU forced Government to provide workers with alternative employment, even though in many cases their services were not needed in the place of work where they were posted, is a precedent that they want to follow.

Apparently, different circumstances and different situations do not matter much to trade unions. The most important element to them is that their members have work and a place of work, or rather, have a pay irrespective of whether they are productive or not.

Now with Government's intention to accelerate the pace of privatisation, the threat to the present employment complement in each parastatal body is becoming more tangible. A private employer will certainly not accept to take over surplus labour for he wants to minimise costs, ensure the maximisation of profits to be in a position to invest more, and to experience growth. Only then will it become more possible for him to generate employment opportunities.

But these are long-term considerations with which trade unions are not primarily concerned. The future beckons. Surprisingly, the trade unions do not appear to be concerned with at least four simple points: that workers are often posted to an unproductive place, people's taxes are forked out uselessly, acquired skills are not applied, and the affected workers themselves may end up frustrated.

Delving into these factors, one concludes that workers and the national economy will suffer in the end. The workers themselves, even though they are getting an income, may feel like a square peg in a round hole.

They cannot practise their crafts and skills, their whole life training will come to end; their work style has to change completely. In addition, the country becomes poorer; not only because its taxes are spent on unproductive work, but because the investment in crafts and skills of those workers is lost for ever.

The drydocks workers were renowned for their talents; unfortunately, restructuring and lack of appreciation of their worth were the causal factors of a decline in a number of crafts.

Taxpayers' money could have been better used by deploying it for investment purposes, thereby creating different employment opportunities and, in the process, generating more national wealth. The workers themselves will garner more personal satisfaction by proving their worth instead of depending on the people's taxes.

Developing countries, including small states that have succeeded in their economic development, believe that each citizen can discover new niches and, properly guided, may make great financial inroads in this competitive world based on mass production.

Before its return to China, Hong Kong was a very good illustration as many of its world-renowned goods started off in small garages, satisfying the limited immediate neighbourhood market. Singapore deployed selective credit practices to encourage enterprise and ensure success in the economic field. Botswana invested heavily in human resources development.

Unwittingly, trade unions, with their discriminatory attitude of employing their members' massive support to force government into accepting their terms of providing alternative employment to workers affected by the threat of losing their jobs, are not only doing a disservice to taxpayers and jeopardising economic development and growth, but also harming the workers themselves.

Trade unions will be doing a better service to their members and the country if they inculcate in their members a culture of independence of mind and nurture a perception that they can overcome obstacles through their initiative and innovative ideas.

The old English saying "necessity is the mother of invention" can easily be applied to this situation. A look around the business sector will certainly help us to come across people who entered commercial life because of adverse prevailing circumstances and not out of premeditated plans.

Trade unions should campaign for government to desist from holding on to the principle of being an employer. Admittedly, there are instances when services have to be provided by government and thus, whether it likes or not, has to employ people.

But governments should not take part in commercial activities when these can be better managed by the private sector.

Rather, trade unions should force government to create the business environment that is necessary for economic development and growth to ensure the generation of employment opportunities and employ selective credit practices to help people with potential ideas.

Furthermore, trade unions must impress on government to ensure that the younger generation has minds and attitudes developed through an education system not solely based on memory and reproduction of what is found in books that are meant to cater for other countries' boys and girls.

Finally, trade unions should lead government to provide a good health policy to ensure a healthy working population.

It would not be amiss for trade unions to insist that the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development should regularly meet because it is through the co-operation and co-ordination of the social partners and not through confrontation and conflict that workers and country will benefit.

These objectives can be attained. These should point the way forward. There is certainly no point in having sectoral interests prevailing on others when the cake is contracting. In the end everybody will suffer.

If only a clear perception ensues that with economic expansion all parties will benefit!

Dr Borda is an economist specialising in the economic development of small states.