Editorial

When Labour leader Alfred Sant said at the General Workers' Union's congress last week that the union would be a "privileged partner" in a future Labour government he might not have realised that he was going against the wishes of the union members themselves. But it looks as if both Dr Sant and a number of union delegates are not all that interested in what the union members think about the relations which the union should keep with the political parties.

Dr Sant's comment was confirmation that the party had absolutely no intention of letting the union move out of its political orbit. However much Dr Sant now tries to clarify the party's stand, the political connotations of what his message conveyed were loud and clear. No wonder the other trade unions reacted so strongly against it.

The GWU did once test its members' views over its role and their verdict was quite clear. They wished to see the organsiation project an image that was independent of the political parties. But as many unions abroad were easing themselves out of formal, or informal, political alliances, most in Malta believed that despite the outcome of the union's own survey, the GWU had remained firmly entrenched within the Labour Party orbit.

In making such statement about the GWU enjoying a privileged status under Labour, Dr Sant sowed the seeds of uncertainty over the way it would act in its relations with the rest of the trade union movement if it were returned to power.

It also brought many unhappy memories of how the socialist government under Dom Mintoff treated the "independent" trade unions at the time of the party's marriage of convenience with the GWU and, in a way, the workers too, as, for example, when the jobless who joined the series of labour corps set up by the government were not even allowed to join trade unions.

Had the union changed track, as, according to its own survey, its members wanted it to, it could have rebuilt its credibility and increased its membership too. But clearly this would have run against the interest of the political wing of the movement, or so would the Labour hardliners think, to the great political advantage of the Nationalist Party! In fact, for obvious reasons, it is the PN that has gained most, politically, both from the latest declaration by Dr Sant and the developments within the GWU.

In rejecting the moderates in the election for the top posts, the union delegates confirmed that the GWU has no intention of changing its tactics. It is in vain for Tony Zarb, who has been re-elected general secretary, to go to great lengths to explain what he means by militancy. In many people's minds, it means inflammatory language, time-limits and threats of taking to the streets.

Just before the election for the top posts at the GWU, The Times wondered what the union members felt, in other words whether they preferred the type of militancy practised by Mr Zarb and company or the "new way" advocated by the moderates, who have now been defeated.

Now that Mr Zarb has been confirmed in his post, how do the members see their own union? Given the highly controversial nature of the election, does the GWU today have enough courage to test its members' opinion again to see if they approve of their own delegates' move?