Nursing aides' dispute

I refer to the editorial A Shameful Episode (August 17) in which The Times turned all its guns on the GWU and fired a series of senseless accusations at the union while trying to absolve the government from the currrent dispute relating to nursing aides, health assistants and care workers.

May I strongly point out that I value every journalist's right and freedom to pen his/her comments on anything that happens on our tiny island. However, journalists, and especially editors, are in duty bound to avoid being in any way biased and prejudiced in their comments so as to inform rather than form or influence public opinion. Therefore, even in the case of journalism, rights and duties go hand in hand.

This brings me to the point that this editorial was tainted by biased comments and by holding the GWU responsible for the hardships(!) the patients and the elderly in state-owned hospitals and homes had to endure during the dispute.

The prejudice against the GWU was so intense that the editorial writer failed to remember and therefore refrained from mentioning that it was the government's hardheadedness that pushed the GWU towards resorting to industrial action. That's no surprise! The GWU always stresses, be it with private or public entities, that the table of negotiations remains the highest priority.

However, when this process fails then industrial action is resorted to. No union worth its salt can keep up endless negotiations and discussions that lead nowhere. And the negotiations regarding the claims on behalf of nursing aides, health assistants and care workers have been going on for at least five years without any hope of fruitful results.

The editorial quite rightly mentioned that these categories of workers belong to a profession that cares for people, however, this fact should by no means obstruct or deny them the right to take action to preserve and to improve their interests and conditions at work.

Equally, the editorial was grossly mistaken in saying that the GWU's directives and attitude were reprehensible. This assertion is very far from the truth as nursing aides and health assistants, by definition, only assist in the caring of patients and the elderly.

The GWU came in for further criticism for, it was claimed, not seeking other avenues. Here again the editorial was disgustingly inaccurate. During the last meeting prior to the union reverting to industrial action, the government's negotiators closed all doors to further negotiations by the union.

The impression we got from their faces was that they were directed from above not to budge from their rigid position. As a responsible negotiator seeking a solution around the table, the GWU even suggested that both sides agree on an evaluation exercise to be carried out on the workers involved in the dispute. But this was rejected. The truth is when direct contact was made between Noel Vella, the director of employment and industrial relations, and the GWU's deputy general secretary Geitu Mercieca, the latter informed him of the government's rigidity and that such an approach resulted in the fact that serious negotiations could not take place.

It was the director taking the role of mediator that led to the unblocking of the impasse, and thus the resumption of negotiations and the subsequent suspension of industrial action. This proves that the leader writer was either naïve and not well informed about the issue or he wanted to shoot at the GWU and at all costs hold it responsible for the resulting consequences of the industrial action. The least the editorial writer could have done was to verify the facts with the GWU officials, if the aim was genuinely journalistic.

May I remind readers that during the spate of strikes of 1977, especially during the doctors and nurses' industrial actions, The Times was on the side of trade unions. In fact, one of the editorials in The Times entitled Trade Union Principles, not only did not shed tears for the patients and the elderly but went on to applaud the industrial actions implying also that all those who had gone on strike, including doctors and nurses, had done so because "what they wanted was to reaffirm in the most clear terms the right to take industrial action in defence of their rights".

I have to stress that during the current dispute, goodwill was evident only on one side, the side of the GWU. Few are those who believe that the government is really concerned about the suffering of the elderly. Although the government is finally recognising the poor working conditions of the nursing aides and the lack of staff in hospitals and homes for the elderly, little is being done to address and resolve the issue.

Ultimately the minister responsible is more interested in politicising the situation rather than working towards a win-win situation with the GWU.