With the World Cup extravaganza now over, workers at various places of work are once again engaged in discussions over public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday. As a result of the ILO recommendation made some days ago, the government is expected to refrain from interfering between unions and employers when these agree on collective agreements. The government, the Labour Party, the General Workers' Union, employers' bodies and the Union Haddiema Maghqudin all made their observations on this issue. Naturally, some were opposing, others free riders.
From a trade union viewpoint, the ILO recommendation may be seen attractive to further entice workers to the trade union movement. On the contrary, this will lead to some entrepreneurs keeping unions at bay and do all in their power to dissuade their workers from joining a union, notwithstanding that such action is legally or ethically incorrect. On the other hand, entrepreneurs of unionised places of work will claim unfair competition. Against this background, the UHM shall continue to strive to safeguard workers' interests and places of work.
The government was quick in his reply and referred to a piece of legislation enacted by the Labour administration in 1975 when nine holidays were abolished notwithstanding provisions in collective agreements. But that was yesterday or, perhaps more accurately, the day before yesterday! This is all history in Malta's industrial relations and we should use such information only for record purposes.
The GWU is full of glee and joy and seems more interested to cross swords with the government than to look for a just solution that would be of benefit to both workers and employers. The GWU has an axe to grind with the government and, as such, they are prepared to push the government into a situation whereby - with no other option left - the government, as has already been indicated, would be willing to strike off two public holidays. The result would further negatively affect the pay packet of all workers entitled to a premium for giving their services on a public holiday. In return, the government can publicly be called all sorts of names for doing so but workers will remain with the short end of the stick.
Various employers' organisations have publicly made known their aspiration following the ILO recommendation, which, incidentally, falls in line with what the government has announced.
The MLP, aspiring to take charge of government in the next general election, did not waste time and admonished the government for taking such a harsh decision against workers' vacation leave entitlement.
Leading MLP elements and shadow spokesmen have declared that in the first six months of a new Labour Administration they will abolish/withdraw measures or implement other decisions in various spheres.
But no timeframes were mentioned in terms of the holidays issue. This means the decision could be reversed at any time during a five-year legislature. A clear statement on this issue from the MLP would be appropriate.
The UHM, when engaged in discussions over a social pact for Malta, favoured that whatever was agreed upon should be introduced for a defined period of time. Three to four years. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached much as the UHM pressed for one.
The result is that, by 2008, workers would forfeit 15 public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday as against the eight for the same period that would have been lost had a social pact been drawn up.
Today, the UHM will strongly oppose the government using all legitimate industrial relations tools if, for reasons that must be obvious to all, a consensus between the stakeholders is not reached to compromise on this issue, which would lead the government to implement his already declared plans of abolishing two public holidays. Workers had to bear the brunt of the situation due to the GWU's hostile and unyielding stand during the negotiations on the social pact. The UHM will certainly steer away from a similar situation.
Workers' interests are certainly served best through meaningful social dialogue and compromise rather than resorting to bluff, coercion and strike action. The way forward should be an agreement between the social partners for a defined period of time.
Mr Vella is the UHM's secretary general.
gvella@uhm.org.mt