Each year, more and more permanent jobs are lost to sub-contracting companies or agencies, which often engage workers with little or no job security, inferior benefits and with substandard working conditions. All this is leading to a two-tier workforce with fewer directly employed workers and an increasing number of persons employed through contracts or agencies.
Locally, the reality is that a number of workers, particularly young workers, are faced with definite rather than with indefinite contracts of employment. When I was younger I had the impression that every employee in Malta was on indefinite contract of employment. Today things are changing fast and one needs to adapt to the circumstances. However, that does not mean that one has to suffer as a consequence of the required change.
The General Workers' Union (GWU) never opposed change. What it is against is the attitude and action of those employers who are using definite contracts of employment to play around with workers' rights and conditions.
For example, students who during their three-months summer holidays opt for a job are being offered a contract of a six to 12 months duration. Little do they know that upon signing such an agreement they have to honour it to the full, or else they will be punished by having to pay half of the remaining wages.
This very often means that the penalty they have to pay is much more then what they would actually have earned. Isn't this modern method of exploitation?
It is in this background that the GWU is prioritising such an issue.
The law stipulates that an employer may differentiate between the conditions of employment of an employee on a fixed term contract and a comparable employee on a contract of service for an indefinite time. As a matter of fact, there are many cases where employees on definite contracts are faced with inferior working conditions in comparison to indefinite employees.
Even if the employer treats all the employees equally, employees on definite contracts remain somehow deprived. Contract employment on a monthly/yearly basis psychologically affects the person involved. Indeed, many employees are finding themselves in difficulties when entering into long-term financial commitments such as mortgages. It is already very hard to apply for loans in normal circumstances and things can get much more complicated for youngsters who are employed on monthly or year-to-year contracts.
The feeling of security at the place of work is an integral part of any employee's peace of mind, something employees under definite contracts do not have. Moreover, at the end of the day, definite contracts reduce one's sense of belonging towards his workplace.
Yet it seems that certain employers are not concerned about the high workforce turnover, which may lead to short/medium-term negative results.
These employers are arguing that contracts are ideal for employing people on the American concept of "hire and fire" as it is easier to sack such employees when they are not needed any longer.
Such employers are not morally troubled that employees are losing money when it comes to notice payments or other redundancy payments, because they are using to their advantage loopholes such as that of automatic contract renewal.
The GWU does understand that some companies' operations are seasonal but that does not give them the right to exploit their employees during that period of employment.
To try to minimise such abuses, when negotiating collective agreements the GWU is pursuing a policy that makes sure that definite contract workers are included in the said agreement so as not to be treated less favourably than their counterparts on indefinite contract.
Under the said policy, such employees are subject to all conditions laid out in these agreements and are entitled to all benefits including all public holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, birth leave, bereavement leave, marriage leave and injury leave applicable and to any entitlement to statutory bonuses as regulated by legislation.
Additionally, the GWU within the collective bargaining process maintains that the four-year period should be reduced for an employee to switch from a definite to an indefinite contract of employment. Furthermore, the GWU upholds that employers should give priority to employees with definite contracts when they seek to recruit new staff.
In a number of cases, there exists a workplace cold war between employees on definite and indefinite contracts. The indefinite contract workers consider the others as a threat since the definite contract employees are ready to accept inferior conditions because of fear that they would otherwise lose their job. Does this make employers proud? Is it not shameful for employers who are embarking on this course to the detriment of the workers? Is this the way forward for our industry to be competitive?
In such circumstances the GWU has a challenge to face, since these contracts are eroding the stipulated terms and conditions and it is more difficult for trade unions to reach definite contract employees. The latter are less likely to become union members since they presume that their contract will not be renewed and so it is not worth for them to be organised. This unfortunately worsens the situation for the trade unions in their aim to improve the workers' well-being.
After resolving the anomaly that existed with regards to the part-timers' working hours, the government, as a model employer, should get on to its next task: Refraining from employing on definite contract basis in order to save money to the detriment of the workers.
The abuse of definite contract of employment is an increasing problem in various sectors and in different levels of employment. Let's tackle it now on a national level if social partners really believe in shedding employment abuses!
• Ms Gatt is corporate executive at the GWU.
Locally, the reality is that a number of workers, particularly young workers, are faced with definite rather than with indefinite contracts of employment. When I was younger I had the impression that every employee in Malta was on indefinite contract of employment. Today things are changing fast and one needs to adapt to the circumstances. However, that does not mean that one has to suffer as a consequence of the required change.
The General Workers' Union (GWU) never opposed change. What it is against is the attitude and action of those employers who are using definite contracts of employment to play around with workers' rights and conditions.
For example, students who during their three-months summer holidays opt for a job are being offered a contract of a six to 12 months duration. Little do they know that upon signing such an agreement they have to honour it to the full, or else they will be punished by having to pay half of the remaining wages.
This very often means that the penalty they have to pay is much more then what they would actually have earned. Isn't this modern method of exploitation?
It is in this background that the GWU is prioritising such an issue.
The law stipulates that an employer may differentiate between the conditions of employment of an employee on a fixed term contract and a comparable employee on a contract of service for an indefinite time. As a matter of fact, there are many cases where employees on definite contracts are faced with inferior working conditions in comparison to indefinite employees.
Even if the employer treats all the employees equally, employees on definite contracts remain somehow deprived. Contract employment on a monthly/yearly basis psychologically affects the person involved. Indeed, many employees are finding themselves in difficulties when entering into long-term financial commitments such as mortgages. It is already very hard to apply for loans in normal circumstances and things can get much more complicated for youngsters who are employed on monthly or year-to-year contracts.
The feeling of security at the place of work is an integral part of any employee's peace of mind, something employees under definite contracts do not have. Moreover, at the end of the day, definite contracts reduce one's sense of belonging towards his workplace.
Yet it seems that certain employers are not concerned about the high workforce turnover, which may lead to short/medium-term negative results.
These employers are arguing that contracts are ideal for employing people on the American concept of "hire and fire" as it is easier to sack such employees when they are not needed any longer.
Such employers are not morally troubled that employees are losing money when it comes to notice payments or other redundancy payments, because they are using to their advantage loopholes such as that of automatic contract renewal.
The GWU does understand that some companies' operations are seasonal but that does not give them the right to exploit their employees during that period of employment.
To try to minimise such abuses, when negotiating collective agreements the GWU is pursuing a policy that makes sure that definite contract workers are included in the said agreement so as not to be treated less favourably than their counterparts on indefinite contract.
Under the said policy, such employees are subject to all conditions laid out in these agreements and are entitled to all benefits including all public holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, birth leave, bereavement leave, marriage leave and injury leave applicable and to any entitlement to statutory bonuses as regulated by legislation.
Additionally, the GWU within the collective bargaining process maintains that the four-year period should be reduced for an employee to switch from a definite to an indefinite contract of employment. Furthermore, the GWU upholds that employers should give priority to employees with definite contracts when they seek to recruit new staff.
In a number of cases, there exists a workplace cold war between employees on definite and indefinite contracts. The indefinite contract workers consider the others as a threat since the definite contract employees are ready to accept inferior conditions because of fear that they would otherwise lose their job. Does this make employers proud? Is it not shameful for employers who are embarking on this course to the detriment of the workers? Is this the way forward for our industry to be competitive?
In such circumstances the GWU has a challenge to face, since these contracts are eroding the stipulated terms and conditions and it is more difficult for trade unions to reach definite contract employees. The latter are less likely to become union members since they presume that their contract will not be renewed and so it is not worth for them to be organised. This unfortunately worsens the situation for the trade unions in their aim to improve the workers' well-being.
After resolving the anomaly that existed with regards to the part-timers' working hours, the government, as a model employer, should get on to its next task: Refraining from employing on definite contract basis in order to save money to the detriment of the workers.
The abuse of definite contract of employment is an increasing problem in various sectors and in different levels of employment. Let's tackle it now on a national level if social partners really believe in shedding employment abuses!
• Ms Gatt is corporate executive at the GWU.