Editorial

In a way, it is understandable for the General Workers' Union to feel so much aggrieved by the port workers' decision to choose the legal adviser of their own in the talks over proposed reform, but then rather than acting indignantly over their action it should first see why they had done so.

What is happening to the GWU is no light matter, for even though the team involved in the talks over the port reforms includes the union's section secretary, the port workers' move in retaining George Abela as their legal adviser, rather than the union's own lawyers, could mean an in-built fear on the workers' part that other union interests may interfere in its work on their behalf.

On its part, the union is not excluding the possibility that there may be those on the workers' side who are interested in stoking the fire.

As it happens, the issue boiled over on May Day, a fact that had not passed unnoticed by Dr Abela, the port workers' long-standing lawyer, who was not allowed to address the port workers at the union's headquarters. A resolution approved by the port workers reveals the chasm that exists between their representatives and the union's administration. According to the workers, a letter sent to the workers by the general secretary undermined their representatives' credibility.

But the port workers have gone far beyond criticising the top men at the union. What must have really infuriated the union was their warning to the general membership: "This should be an eye-opener for all other GWU members about the way the highest echelons of the union are dealing with port workers at a time when our livelihood is at stake". Their collective view on this speaks volumes, as did many of the comments made by their legal adviser.

In the light of the way the GWU generally acts, as a "privileged partner" of the Labour Party, there was no need reading between the lines of what Dr Abela meant when he said: "I made it clear from the outset that if I was going to assist in the complex port reform talks, I did not want someone else to interfere with political overtones and demonstrations saying that the union wants to topple the government".

This was a direct reference to what the union's general secretary had said some months ago in a street protest. His exact quote was: "You either come to the table of discussion or we'll topple you". He had later corrected his stand by saying that he would not do anything anti-democratic to bring the government's downfall.

The GWU is in a quandary of its own making. If the port workers felt the need to retain Dr Abela as their lawyer, there must have surely been a reason for them to do so.

The union can well choose to keep its blinkers on, but it will do so at its peril for it is unlikely to make much headway in the fight for new members if present members feel they can be treated in the way port workers complain about.

A new sense of direction, independent both in form and action from any political interests, could help the union to collaborate more closely with other social partners within the Malta Council for Social and Economic Development, a body that cries out for reform. Winning back the confidence of the port workers is only one step in the work it needs to do to rehabilitate its image.