The Monti hawkers' representation

The current dispute between the hawkers and the government, who is not their employer, is nothing but a storm in a tea cup. It should have never been stretched to such a state where agreement has become rather impossible to achieve due to the intransigence of both sides of the table.

The whole issue revolves around the best location where the hawkers can conduct their commercial activities. The government had offered alternative arrangements, apparently a few metres down the road. The hawkers rejected such offer, insisting they either stay at the present location or otherwise move to a more prominent place such as the square at the city's entrance. They had also refrained from setting up their stalls at St James Ditch, their market's location on Sundays, even if this was just on a temporary basis.

The whole point is that the hawkers should have a place where they could attract at least the current number of customers whereas the government has every right to determine the location where the hawkers should conduct their business. Taking the right decision also means safeguarding the interest of those running a shop in Valletta and ensuring minimum inconvenience to the city residents and to the thousands of commuters who visit Valletta for some reason or another.

The Monti hawkers have every right to earn a decent living. They are not deprived from defending this right whenever they feel it is being threatened or somehow manipulated to cause permanent damage to their livelihood. Nothing stops them from organising themselves within a trade union to fight for their legitimate rights. But by their own nature, being self employed, they do not enjoy the full benefits of trade union immunity as stipulated by labour laws. They can resort to street protests as much as they want but they can never take industrial action. Their issue, whatever it is, does not constitute a trade dispute. They are not part of an employer - employee relationship and, therefore, employment relations are practically non-existent in their regard.

Sympathy strikes or industrial actions would therefore be illegal if one were to opt for such tactics of solidarity. That is why it is rather surprising for the union representing the hawkers to adopt a confrontational strategy in their dealings with the government. It is even more disturbing to see another union unnecessarily intruding into the issue as if expressing solidarity with the other union but at the same time fishing for the hawkers' membership just in case they do not get it right this time round.

The self employed deserve a better service from the trade unions.

Aren't unions there to offer collective representation for employees in their dealings with employers? Can they really be able to defend the interests of the self employed who, after all, are effectively small business people engaged in running their own enterprises? Indeed, aren't unions sometimes quite hostile to the idea of self employment?

Certainly unions continue to protest strongly when in their opinion unscrupulous employers try to avoid their responsibilities by encouraging staff to move into various forms of pseudo-self employment. It is not uncommon nowadays for employees to be encouraged to opt for sub-contracting, home working and farming out of specific operations. Unions, especially in Europe, point out that they have a long history of recruiting the genuinely self employed, particularly in sectors such as the media and entertainment. Those who are in favour argue that this is necessary and a natural response to labour market developments.

This initiative aims to demonstrate that unions have a role to play in representing individuals working in new ways. Without admitting in public, unions believe that attracting the support of the self employed would also enhance their membership base, which has been in decline for several years. Unions that seek to meet the needs of the self employed, however, have to ensure they have the necessary facilities in place because the requirements of the self employed are totally different from those of the traditional employee member. By definition this is likely to mean a shift from collective representation and bargaining to the servicing of individual needs, a transition that can put pressure on unions' staffing and administrative structures.

In this scenario, unions would face the issue of how the self employed members are integrated into existing democratic and organisational structures. In particular, the relationship between self employed and employee members - whose interests are much focused on traditional collective bargaining processes and who may view their own pay standards and employment conditions as being threatened by outsourcing - needs to be carefully managed.

The harsh reality is that if unions do not provide the employment-based advice and support services workers are increasingly requiring, it is quite possible that this market would be targeted by straightforward commercial operators such as employment agencies offering professional assistance, legal advice and commercial regulatory services.

Unfortunately, our trade unions have not been geared to provide the right level of protection to this category of workers. The Monti relocation ordeal proves my point. Otherwise, it would not have taken more than a week to reach an agreement on a dispute which, if put in perspective, is all about relocating the open market a few metres away from where it had been set up 18 years ago and improving its quality of service.

What's the big deal?

matyas@maltanet.net