Editorial

Now that the general election is over, it is high time for the government to spell out the worst case scenario for Malta Shipyards. What will happen once state aid ceases at the end of the year? Will it close?

In 2002, Malta and the EU agreed on a seven-year restructuring programme aimed at making the shipyards viable. However, despite more than €800 million of subsidies, the shipyards are still in the red. Low productivity is blamed by the Minister for Communications and National Projects Austin Gatt, whose portfolio retained the shipyards after the election.

The truth is always more complex than could possibly be captured in a few words. There are far too many paradoxes. One could argue that the 'yard is still overmanned but that there is a need for more personnel. The early retirement scheme, in spite of discretionary restrictions, resulted in the loss of valuable skills.

And, yet, there are times when the 'yard needs a quick, sharp inflow of personnel in order to finish a contract on time, a practice that never fails to ruffle the feathers of the General Workers' Union.

The union has its own demons: The influence the shipyards section used to exercise over the GWU administration has whittled away over the years, partly because the section allowed itself to be outmanoeuvred, partly by natural erosion. What is the section really after? Is the long-term livelihood of those currently employed at the 'yard its main concern? What has in reality been its contribution to save the 'yard?

Caught in between currents and under-currents, the workers are understandably demoralised, even if some of them are not completely blameless. They have been used and abused for so long they must find it hard to know who to believe, who to trust. Surely they would, if they truly believed that the absolute, irrevocable end was in sight, agree to a complete change in work practice. They were not afraid to stand up and be counted when the USS La Salle controversy threatened their livelihood some years back. Now it seems they are waiting for the union to pull a rabbit out of the hat on December 31. There is no hat. There is no rabbit. The sabre might be rattled, yes, but nothing will change the fact that state aid will have to stop...

In the circumstances, the government should hasten to spell out its plans and take all stakeholders in its confidence instead of just avoiding the "C" word. It might then be easier to motivate the managers and, indeed, the employees themselves. Can you attract business if you simply cannot tell your client whether you will be around to do the work? Can you increase productivity if workers know that their efforts will not result in more repeat business because there simply will be no business at all? The government's silence is not conducive to resolute remedial action by those who can and should make the place work: Employees and their managers.

The government should also be forthcoming about whether the whole shipyard would sink or whether it could save the profitable units, like Malta Super Yacht Services (MSYS). This unit could quite feasibly move to the Marsa Shipbuilding site, which has long been eyed for maritime-related industry. Maybe, after years of procrastination, the government will make a decision, irrespective of how many private interests it disappoints.

The government should likewise be open about its plans for the creek. Boiler Wharf would make a great spillover quay for cruise liners and the development (urban regeneration) potential of the rest of the creek if the 'yard were to be closed is evident.

Surely the shipyards - all or part - could still be privatised as long as the union does not scupper the deal before it even takes shape by insisting that all the workforce is kept on and that working conditions are left untouched?

Over 1,000 people are in limbo. They have the right to know what their real options are.