Tuesday, 6th May 2008 - 21:33CET
Shipyard in 'precarious and unsustainable financial situation' - government
The government said this evening that Malta Shipyards is in a “precarious and unsustainable financial situation” and it accused the GWU of shirking responsibility for the low productivity of its members, which had led to this situation.
The government was reacting to a statement issued by the union earlier this afternoon, which claimed that the shipyard would make losses of up to €46.59 million (Lm20 million) on a ship conversion contract. The union blamed the executive management and demanded a public inquiry by the government (see separate story below).
The Ministry for the Infrastructure, Transport and Communications described the union’s analysis of the contract as “superficial” and an attempt to shift the blame for the current situation at the dockyard.
“The truth is that the negative impact of the conversion contract mentioned by the GWU is to a great extent due to the serious lack of productivity of the workers engaged on this project. As in the case of other major contracts, this project depended on the ability of the workers and those who led them (also members of the GWU) to finish the work on time and with the least need for repeat work.
“The fact is, however, that productivity on this project was very low, indeed, this was the lowest rate of productivity when compared to productivity levels in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, the amount of work which had to be redone because it was not done properly the first time was very high as well.
“The client repeatedly protested to management over this seriously low productivity level and the lack of planning by whoever was supposed to deploy and manage the workers,” the ministry said.
Referring to the point made by the GWU on the marketing executive, the government said that the union had tried to give the impression that he had been negotiating the contract on his own. Yet anybody who had a basic knowledge of contracts of this scale knew that the whole management was involved. This marketing executive had left of his own free will, one reason being the frustration he suffered when he compared the situation in Malta to that in other shipyards, the ministry said.
The ministry said the contract had made allowance for variations, and the shipyard was to be paid for such changes. But the shipyard was not paid when work took longer than contracted or had to be redone because it was not done properly in the first place.
The ministry said the losses from the contract mentioned by the GWU were “a huge exaggeration”.
It said that contrary to what had been claimed, the union was always informed about the financial situation of the company through regular meetings.
It had also always been told that the poor level of productivity was a major problem and it had a major role to play in solving it. But the union had washed its hands of such responsibility, the government said.
It said the union statement was harmful to the reputation of the shipyard. It would have been more helpful had the union given its contribution for the workers to do their duty during the term of the conversion contract, the ministry said.
RSS
Comments
As an ex-Malta Drydocks employee, it is a fact now that back in 2003 when
900 workers were reduced from the force, at that time the problem was not the
workers themselves. I would like to point out that from those 900 workers (the majority
were very skilled workers and for most of them the MDD paid for their courses) only
about 3 were Managers. The majority of the managers remained at their job. Not only
this, but for some managers were given more than one promotion. Now that the same
problem remains at the Malta Shipyards who is to blame? The same managers after
nearly 5 years are still there. With less skilled workers and more managers
(and promotions) the blame goes to those who back in 2003 made the wrong choice
of dismantle the workforce to a blablaforce. These people are none but the
MANAGEMENT of that time who most of them are still there at the helm of the
shipyards
I always said that the problem has to be seen in future not now (ie2003) and
my appeal goes to the government to investigate those who are at the top
management and were at 2003. Let's not forget the previous Chairman.
Many of those skilled workers (welders, shipwrights, pipeworkers and
many more) are employed with Local Councils and other government departments
making work not related to their skill.
My advice to the Government is let Malta Shipyard go bellly up, dissove it; And only then reorganize it under a totally new entity with specific targeted goals and aims.
The Govt should address this matter apolitically as over there the just under two thousand workers have families and if laid off we, taxpayers, will be subsidising the families without getting nothing in return.
So whilst these two august bodies (Government and GWU) continue to dither and scrape out funereal notes on their violins, the livelihoods of thousands of employees, their families and the Maltese economy hang in the balance. A very fine state of affairs indeed.
Why does the government expect the union to help in the managment of the workers? Also, did the workers negotiate this agreement?
Another thing which I notice:- Why did the government wait for the Union to criticise the contract, for them to come out with this criticism to the workers?!!
Also, was it not a only a few weeks/months ago that Austin said that the yards are now approaching a break even position after the restructuring? Can he now take responsibility of what he said?!
I don't understand - but to me it seems that this stinks - as if there are people whose sole interest is to see the yards fail - so that they can get hold of the land for developmental purposes.