Rethinking the GWU

These are sad times for the General Workers' Union, of concern to workers who need it to guard their interests and to those who wish it well. The union is an institution highly relevant to the public good. Its internal affairs attract scrutiny and comment much as those of the Church and the political parties. Unnecessary turbulence within it is harmful and wasteful.

It beats comprehension that long-serving able servants like Josephine Attard Sultana and Frans Buttigieg are cast out, whatever internal differences of opinions and styles there might have been. The point is not that there was a majority decision by the GWU national council, but whether that was the proper judgement seat.

The wiser course would have been to take into account queries that arose about a petition by a number of Ms Attard Sultana's section delegates to remove her, enable delegates who wanted her out to sign a fresh, clear petition, and if there were enough of them, let a meeting of the section's delegates decide the issue.

Even had the delegates who had elected her in the first place decided they wanted no more of Ms Attard Sultana, the union could have left open the possibility of utilising her capabilities elsewhere. The GWU needs all the experienced resources it can get. It faces tough tasks. They arise out of the shift in the economic base towards services activities and, in parallel, the massive external challenges to the union's traditional declining main catchment areas - the shipyard and manufacturing.

It is not correct to accuse the GWU's administration of a swing towards militancy. It is the function of a union to militate in its members' interests. It does so best by choosing tactics appropriate to each circumstance. In the interests of trying to safeguard jobs the GWU - as private employers know well enough - is being very responsible towards companies grappling with the harsh reality of unavoidable economic change.

It remains incomprehensible that the GWU leadership is also plunging into unnecessary pitfalls, to the cynical delight of Nationalist detractors. The Nationalist media triggered the last week's to-do over George Abela, attributing to him remarks he did not make. It is impossible to fathom why his immediate correction was ignored by the union's administration, and that there was an attempt to besmirch him.

Dr Abela is representing Ms Attard Sultana in court (and also the executive committee of the section she led). She has as much right to the services of a lawyer as anyone else. Dr Abela is as free to act on her behalf as other lawyers are at liberty to act for the GWU. The loaded charge by the union administration that Dr Abela has an "affinity" with the Nationalists because his legal firm of five lawyers competitively won the right to include Mepa among its clients, and thereby be subject to Parliament's scrutiny of that public body, was remarkably unworthy.

Pressing the charge further in the GWU media was despicable. The GWU was not enriched when its leadership did away with Dr Abela's counselling, which had helped the union win many battles and benefits for its members. The lawyer behaved with befitting professionalism and reticence when the union no longer retained him. His abiding concern remained the interest of the workers.

The GWU leaders are free not to be beholden to Dr Abela for his past services. They do not add any power to their elbow by trying to undermine his credibility. More than ever before, workers need strong unions that are relevant to the changing circumstances. The GWU needs all the resources, energy and focus it can muster to renew itself, restructure to face more effectively the threats and opportunities inherent in the economic and social upheavals brought about by far-reaching global shifts.

Internal struggles and personal external attacks do not promote that key objective. The GWU leaders could do worse than to step back and rethink their strategy.