• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Government forges ahead on shipyards

'We can't wait for the GWU'

The government will today announce four "final" voluntary retirement schemes for shipyard employees after an unscheduled meeting requested by the General Workers' Union failed to yield an agreement, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said yesterday.

He insisted that the government was "committed to privatisation" adding that Malta Shipyards workers ought to be made aware that, should the process fail, the company would have to be declared bankrupt and they would lose their job. And those who did not take up the early retirement schemes would end up empty handed.

Giving a hint of the schemes, which will be open to all the workers, Mr Fenech said they are modelled on the schemes that were offered to workers in 2003 (when the shipyards were restructured) with adjustments to reflect today's realities.

After the two-hour meeting, GWU secretary general Tony Zarb said the union did not agree with the schemes' financial aspect or the fact that they would be issued today.

Mr Fenech and Mr Zarb both confirmed that the two bones of contention were the union's demand that employment should be guaranteed to those who do not take up the scheme, and its insistence that the schemes be issued only once the prospective buyer is known.

Mr Fenech said the government had no choice but to abide by the procedure and announce the schemes to ensure the success of the privatisation process. The government could only guarantee employment if the process went through and for this to happen the current 1,700 employees had to be reduced to about 700.

"If the number of workers remains large and the privatisation falls through, the consequences are clear. On January 1, the shipyards will close down," he said. Mr Fenech explained that yesterday's unplanned meeting was held after he received a letter from Mr Zarb requesting the immediate resumption of discussions. During the meeting the union stuck to its demand for guaranteed employment, but the government was not in a position to give this type of guarantee. It could only guarantee a future to shipyards' workers if the privatisation process succeeds, he said.

He clarified that, contrary to the impression given to shipyards' workers, it was wrong to believe that, if privatisation fell through, the workers would retain their jobs.

If the process failed the reality was that Malta Shipyards would go bankrupt because, as from December 31, the government could no longer offer subsidies or guarantees.

"If the privatisation process fails, no one will get anything," he said, adding, however, that those who accepted the schemes would not be affected in such scenario.

He stressed that the government did want the situation to get to that point and had no choice but to issue the schemes today as this had to happen before the calls for expressions of interest are issued next Monday.

He added that these schemes were final as there was no time to issue others.

While the government was willing to carry on discussing the privatisation process with the GWU, it could not keep waiting for the union to come up with its reaction to the schemes.

"We've been in discussions for almost a month and the GWU had ample time to give us their reactions regarding the schemes and their expectations.

"Unfortunately, they did not. This is a disservice to the workers themselves," Mr Fenech said. Mr Zarb said that yesterday's discussions clearly showed that the government would not be keeping its pre-electoral promise and guarantee shipyard workers' employment.

He said the union yesterday presented the government with "practical solutions" and asked it to reflect on them.

The union, he added, was open to further talks with the government.

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

DVella (on 12/8/08)
@laurence martinelli

I would invite you to consider whether your insulting other people, whatever their (misguided)opinion may be, actually contributes anything positive to the discussion.... it really does not reflect very well on your manners and education you know!
laurence schembri (on 7/8/08)
The GWU said; `those who do not accept the Government redundances, can they be guaranteed a job?`
It is a far cry from what J. Martinelli is trying to imply, but then what do you expect from a foreigner. The moment he opens his mouth crap will ooze out.
Sean Meli (on 6/8/08)
Mr Martinelli,

Do you know that the drydocks can be divided on different kinds departments or comapnies of work such as ship repair and/or yachting?

Thanks

sean
M.Dimech (on 6/8/08)
I must say that the story of the shipyards has been in discussion for so long,but now a days every one knows that the problem of the shipyards was and still is the mangement and not the highly skilled workers which works there.
So actions must have been taken on the mangement not on the workers!
If i'm not mistaken the mangement which works in there have quite a good wage,so why are all this wages payed if no one was responsable for what happened.
Thats a question that most people in malta has been asking !!
C. Camilleri (on 6/8/08)
The shipyard drama has dragged too long and has cost the taxpayer more than 950 million euros. There is no more room for talks. Refusal to remove outdated practices and low productivity plus the political strikes ordered by the Union at the moment when the yards was loaded with work brought the dockyard to its present position.The dockyard by any measure is bankrupt and this means that there is no more money in the telly. Any private company would have long ago discharged its workers without any one raising a finger. Now the Dockyards workers have the privilege to chose one of the retirement schemes offered by the Government which no worker who have given productive work in the private sector has been offered. Dockyard workers have had it so good for too long even to the last minute.
M. Tabone (on 6/8/08)
Upps! Thank you J Martinelli. You are right. I was refering to GWU and not UHM. Apologise!
J Martinelli (on 6/8/08)
@ M Tabone - What does the UHM have to do with the shipyards? Did you mean the GWU ?

@ Sean Meli - How can the GWU or the government guarantee jobs when, if privatization fails, the shipyards go bankrupt?

@ Rene Borg - we have already lost the shipyards (as of December 31) unless privatization takes place. What the government is looking forward to is the rebirth of the shipyard under private ownership. The GWU is doing its utmost to make the exercise more painful than it ought to be.

@ David Pisani - "The interest of the union is to safeguard worker's jobs and conditions" - the union is doing exactly the opposite. It is advising the workers not to accept the early retirement package - the union knows that come December 31 there is no shipyard any more and all 1700 will be without a job. Can anyone be much clearer than that? The union has known that for years but preferred to sit on their butt and mislead the workers giving them the impression that it will save their bacon.

In that case why doesn't the union make an offer and run the shipyard itself?
Jean Pierre Aquilina (on 6/8/08)
@Rene Borg:
It is true that the shipyard workers are highly skilled and in general carry out their work to satisfaction. However, what is the point of having a highly skilled workforce when the business is not viable? No person in the right mind will operate a loss-making business, no matter how skilled its employees are.
David Pisani (on 6/8/08)
The interest of the union is to safeguard worker's jobs and conditions, thats what for unions were formed. Whilst the goverment intentions is to hurry up the process, to sell the company to a private enterprise and to promote the ending scenario as a success. When infact they just hiding things. They just promote the false consciousness perspective, to make it look brilliant.

Now the only thing the Union has to do is to safeguard jobs. Hope Government intentions are the same.

Sean Meli (on 6/8/08)
what is important in this issue is the job security for those not applying for the retirement schemes. How can a person stay in the job if he or she don't know the future employer and by which conditions? Does anyone leaves his future in other hands without any direction? The GWU is right in what the administration and sections are doing as getting a guarantee for those who still have years to work at the shipyards which produced expertise for our youngsters through the years with apprenticeships. Lets treat workers with dignity!!
Rene Borg (on 6/8/08)
Speaking from a technical view, I think that we have to be careful how to tread with our shipyards. From experience I know that they had always done a good job for each and every work that it was contracted to them. Losing the shipyards would mean that the service provided by them has to be contracted to a company away from the country. Obviously at a larger financial cost. Once we lose these technical people, we will lose the trade forever.
M. Tabone (on 6/8/08)
If the number of workers were drastically and forcefully reduced in 2003 the country would have saved millions of Euros. The man in the street knew that the shipyards had no place in today's economy. Just look what happened to others like the textile industry. They all left! Shame on the UHM to keep dragging on ad nauseum to the detriment of the country's economy.

Poll

Do you agree with the European Court decision on the removal of Crucifixes from classrooms?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku