Malta Shipyards - a thrust forward

The saga of the Malta Shipyards remains in focus portraying a perception of doom. Year after year the shipyards have been consistently incurring financial deficit on a significant scale. Although during the recent past some improvement was evident the 2006 accounts upset the trend by registering a higher loss than anticipated. This sad state of affairs is being attributed to low productivity. Both management and the workforce were quoted as being culpable for this setback.

With such a situation recurring over successive years a mere sweeping statement does not satisfy the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. The nation in general has been subscribing hundreds of millions of liri hopefully to sustain the shipyards in an attempt to achieve economic viability.

There is however the other side of the coin. Increased annual turnover does not necessarily imply higher profits. Undervalued contracts will boost turnover but will reflect heavier losses. During 2006 the shipyards fell victim to the consequences of an undervalued contract. It was to be expected that the deficit for the respective year would turn out to be grossly inflated. Low productivity cannot be blamed for such a loss. Other quarters are accountable. Had the proper commercial value of the contract been retrieved the deficit for the year would probably have been contained within the forecast limit. The taxpayer demands an explanation on this issue.

Acknowledgement of the union's cooperation in the implementation of the restructuring programme offers some encouragement but the ultimate objective remains beyond realisation. Disciplined behaviour should be reckoned by all and sundry as a primary regulatory commitment and observed accordingly. However, the ultimate responsibility for good order and discipline rests squarely with the management. The union should contribute its support by acting logically and with due diligence.

Other major prerequisites for the shipyards to achieve commercial buoyancy are harmonious relationships at all levels of the staff structure. Absolute credibility and confidence must reign supreme and be evident amongst all. With the management stratified into decision makers and decision followers lacking effective interaction, the efficient operation and economic performance of the shipyards remain at stake.

Time is running out. Unless decisive and effective action is taken promptly the shipyards will see no light at the end of the tunnel. Pronouncements by authoritative sources are indicative of the fate that lies ahead.

It will indeed be an unfortunate event if the shipyards were to cease upholding the long tradition in maritime activities. Not only will hundreds of jobs be lost but a good training ground for the engineering professions and allied trades will be demolished without any chance of recovery - a tragic situation indeed. The union's positive attitude should motivate the labour force into higher momentum to increase and maintain productivity at optimum level. Only in this way can the shipyards carry the banner of competitiveness. Concurrently managerial set-ups and practices should be thoroughly scrutinised and structured to ensure sound commercial operation and efficient performance throughout.

It would serve well the interests of the shipyards if a task force composed of technical and economic professionals were to be set up to conduct a holistic audit and recommend possible remedial measures to put the shipyards on an even keel.

A bold and determined effort to save the shipyards is required now. Management and employees owe it to the nation.