Polishing the 'yards' act

Way back in 1980, Lech Walesa became an icon for workers' rights and civil liberty. He was the leader who inspired and led the strikes at the Gdansk shipyard and set afire industrial unrest across Poland, hastening the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe. A year later, Mr Walesa was elected chairman of Solidarity, the workers' movement, and in 1983, he was given the Nobel Prize for Peace. Between 1990 and 1995, he served as president of his homeland, and lobbied hard to have his country accepted as an EU member.

Recently, Mr Walesa was back in the news. He seems to be back on the warpath. This time his fight is with the EU, which is seeking to trim down the Gdansk shipyard, demanding that it closes two of the three slipways. Experts say that this will inevitably lead to the closure of the shipyard with a further loss of 3,000 jobs. Mr Walesa was reported as saying that "The EU should help us to bring efficiency to the shipyard and we should not lose it as part of some stupid political game" (The Sunday Times, August 12). Is this the lament of an aging nostalgic or is there a lot of sense behind it?

The situation with our own shipyards is no better. The final day of reckoning is fast approaching and is less than 500 days away. It is high time the government comes clean about its intentions as to the future of the shipyards. As part of Malta's Accession Treaty with the EU, our government had deemed it proper to agree to a number of conditions that inevitably determine the framework within which the shipyards are expected to operate. By no stretch of the imagination can these conditions be justified by the rhetoric on market forces and free trade, which policymakers often resort to in support of their decisions.

These conditions include fixing the type and amount of work that can be carried out, the maximum number of hours which the shipyards can operate, the highest number of employees and the closure of dock 1. Moreover, in Malta's case too, the EU stipulated that any aid given in breach of its rules will have to be reimbursed.

This agreement was a by-product of a past era in local politico-economic history. It was agreed to by a ruling political regime whose only objective was to join the EU at all costs and when economics did not go beyond the "money no problem" dictum. Just like with CHOGM and Mater Dei, the chickens are now coming home to roost. Some 900 highly skilled employees had to be "sacrificed" and were seconded with local councils and government departments. In many instances they were given demeaning jobs such as painting poles and traffic lines. For many of them, working life became easier but affected adversely their self-esteem. And the government talks about consolidating Malta's international competitiveness. In the meantime, the Malta Shipyards seem to constantly need to engage significant amounts of foreign workers to supplement the 'yards' workforce. And the government complains that worker productivity at the 'yards has dipped to pre-2004 levels.

Rather, it would be more pertinent for the responsible ministry to emphasise what is being done to enhance the value of the shipyards' output. The prices which they can command depend a lot on strategic marketing and market positioning. These are squarely a responsibility of management. The Investments Ministry should know that the global market in this field too is increasingly being divided between companies that compete on cost, such as those in the Far East, and those that compete through technology, such as those in Western Europe.

This technology can be obtained through proper investments, human resource training and the right strategic partnerships. It is a shame that less than half the funds "earmarked" in the agreement with the EU have to date been invested in the 'yards, forcing employees to work with a lot of obsolete plant and equipment.

With regards to human resources, perhaps the ministry can enlighten us on the number of apprentices recruited by the shipyards in these last years. To them belongs the future, and not to the hundreds of foreign workers who simply drain our country of hard-earned foreign exchange. And lastly, the ministry could perhaps list the strategic alliances which are meant to consolidate the 'yards' technological base. Perhaps it can explain why it was deemed necessary, years back, to find a strategic partner say for Maltacom and Maltapost but not for Malta Shipyards.

The government should no longer bury its head in the sand. The government's accession agreement with the EU envisages that it prepares yearly progress reports on the situation at the local 'yards. These should be made public. And just as our main political parties took a common stand on immigration, they should do the same with regard to the shipyards. It is possible to ask the EU to extend further state aid provided that exceptional and unpredictable circumstances exist.

The loss of over 1,700 jobs is at stake and this at a time when our economy can ill-afford any more losses. Moreover, despite the bad image that the 'yards have been given by the pro-Nationalist propaganda machine, they continue to be a primary cradle of skills and an important element in the local industrial chain. Malta at present does not afford the social and economic cost of closing the shipyards. Failure by the Nationalist government to act fast would be the ultimate act of revenge against one of its primary institutional arch-rivals. Perhaps we can still learn some lessons from Lech Walesa.

fms18@onvol.net