GWU at the crossroads

Tony Zarb's outburst in his weekly column on the GWU daily, L-Orizzont, last Thursday was more than expected. After some two weeks of a public 'discussion' on the GWU's future methods, the battle lines have been drawn with what one can call the confrontationalists on one side and the strategists on the other.

I do not think that the two sides could be termed militants and moderates respectively, as they have already been labelled by the media. The differences are not on principles, but on the way of doing things. In the words of GWU deputy general secretary Emmanuel Micallef, "brain cells have to work harder than muscles". In other words the argument is whether to continue tackling the union's challenges today and in the future with the confrontational methods of the past; whether it is time for the GWU to emulate what leading trade unions have already done all over Europe i.e. attempting to get the best results for their members by being pro-active more than reactive and defensive.

In his article last Thursday Mr Zarb did his best to muddle the issue by arguing that those who use the language that is approved by certain sectors of the media are actually acting in a way that pleases those others who want the union to act differently and pursue a different agenda. This is a poor argument. It is tantamount to accusing a football coach who wants to change tactics and game-plan with wanting to play in the hands of the opposing team, as if by changing tactics one is discarding the aim of winning the game. Mr Zarb's superficial 'argument' is the sort of emotional hogwash that is understood easily - and accepted - by all those who are too lazy or too inept to think.

In his same column in the previous week, Mr Zarb went to great lengths to relate a conversation that he had recently had with some GWU 'veterans', talk that centred on leaks to "the other side" and the methods that the GWU used in the past to tackle disagreements with Nationalist governments... ending up with the time-honoured Maltese proverb on the reliability of the wisdom of older people - kliem ix-xih zomm fih.

The discussion, that has now become a battle of words, was launched by two persons - Mr Micallef, the deputy general secretary, and the GWU's Media & Services Section secretary, Karmenu Vella. Vella, who was re-elected to his post with an overwhelming approval rating, had openly talked of the need to forego "the luxury of conflicts" and of the need for working together and co-operating rather than being in confrontational moods all the time.

Some two weeks after this speech, Mr Micallef wrote an article - Vizjoni - in the GWU Sunday paper, It-Torca (August 28) wherein he argued that the GWU should change its methods considering the constant changes that one can see in the labour market. He emphasised that confrontation as the first Union response to a problem was wrong, adding that confrontation should only be resorted to when arriving at a solution through other means proved impossible.

Mr Micallef also pointed out the GWU's challenges, as the largest union in Malta yet representing only a minority of workers when one considers the large number of workers who are not unionised. He argued that the GWU should educate its members at shop-floor level to become leaders, "not messengers".

Neither Mr Vella's speech nor Mr Micallef's article can be in any way interpreted as a push at changing the union's raison d'être or for adopting an agenda that would be more convenient to the other social partners.

This proposed new stance was greeted with the editorial approval of The Malta Business Weekly ("Light in the GWU tunnel" - September 1-7) and The Times ("Winds of change" - September 6) and this reaction must have put Mr Zarb in further confrontational mood with the simplistic and emotional argument that if this stance is being welcomed, then there is a rat, and it is not in the interest of the GWU.

Propping up Mr Zarb one finds GWU president Salv Sammut, who addressed a seminar organised by the GWU and a Belgian trade union by declaring: "The GWU will always remain vigilant and militant" (L-Orizzont, September 7). Another one propping up Mr Zarb is undoubtedly Gejtu Mercieca, secretary of the GWU's Chemical, Energy and Printing Section.

Writing in the same issue of L-Orizzont last Wednesday, he argued in favour of confrontation as a first response as this would assure the workers that he is on their side: Nghid ghalija nippreferi nikkonfronta mill-ewwel ghax hekk il-haddiema ma jkunux jistghu jahsbu li jien laghbthom! This piece of warped logic only belies Mr Mercieca's incredible inferiority complex, to the extent that he cannot be sure of his members' trust without openly bullying employers!

A more interesting twist in this tug-of-war was revealed by a report in last Monday's In-Nazzjon which reported that during a recent meeting of GWU section secretaries, Mr Micallef had challenged Mr Sammut to declare whom he was referring to when he alleged that there was someone leaking internal information to the press and specifically to declare whether Mr Sammut was referring to him. The report continued saying that Mr Sammut did not reply to this challenge. This report was met by a deafening silence from the GWU, a sure indication of its veracity.

It is obvious that what is appearing in the press is much tamer than the internal tensions in the GWU provoked by this struggle for the reform of the style with which the GWU does its business.

Mr Zarb's emotional claptrap might carry the day for the time being, but this would only leave the GWU at the same crossroads that it finds itself today. The future belongs to the Karmenu Vellas and the Emmanuel Micallefs.

micfal@maltanet.net