Matthew Xuereb
Ministry rubbishes Labour's IPSL idea
The Finance Ministry yesterday rubbished Labour leader Joseph Muscat's idea for dockyard workers to be given the option to join IPSL Ltd, saying this jarred with the MLP's own criticism in 2003 when the company was set up to employ the workers shed during the 'yards' restructuring exercise.
While accusing the government of throwing money at the shipyard problem by offering early retirement schemes to the tune of €49 million, Dr Muscat's idea would increase the workforce in the civil service at a cost of €40 million a year, the ministry said.
The ministry was reacting to comments made by Dr Muscat during a meeting he had with the General Workers' Union on Thursday. Dr Muscat had said the MLP wanted the shipyards' workers to be productive rather than receive money from an early retirement scheme to stay home.
The ministry said that in 2003, when the workers were given the IPSL option, the MLP had argued that valuable skills were being lost because their trades would not be utilised in a productive manner. Now Dr Muscat was calling IPSL (Industrial Projects and Services Ltd) a success story.
On the other hand, the Ministry welcomed the fact that the MLP was in favour of privatisation, saying the fact that both the MLP and the GWU agreed on the future of the shipyard was "a victory for the Maltese people".
The schemes had to be offered now, because in terms of EU directives on transfer of business, once the new operator was identified, it would absorb the workers under current conditions. It was important that the early retirement schemes succeed in order to reduce the number of workers on the new operator's books, thus allowing privatisation to go through.
Replying to queries raised by Dr Muscat during his meeting with the union officials, the ministry said no talks were being held with potential investors.
The companies indicated by Dr Muscat - two from Singapore and one from Norway - had shown an interest last year but they could not continue the process because of the number of workers at the 'yards.
The ministry expressed concern that the MLP did not seem to understand the drastic negative effect a failed privatisation process would have on the company and its workers.
Malta Shipyards would not be able to continue operating after December 31 and the board would have no option but to declare the company bankrupt and fold it.
Referring to Dr Muscat's charge that workers were not given any choice, the ministry said this was not the case. The workers could either take the scheme and receive assistance to reintegrate into the world of work, or else wait until the company is privatised and start working with the new company according to the EU transfer of business directive.
In its reaction, the Labour Party said it would steer away from possible political issues with the government on the shipyards, saying its only interest was the national interest and that of the workers.
It reiterated that the government should explain the €100 million reportedly lost in the two Fairmount contracts. On Thursday, Dr Muscat had called for a fully-fledged investigation into these losses.
The MLP said it also could not understand why the government was opposing the IPSL idea when it was so much in its favour when it had set up the company specifically for such a reason.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
CABS drone shot down
Updated: Labour would give...
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
Second group of migrants arrives
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Robert Bezzina
Aug 9th 2008, 20:23
A State run enterprise can NEVER be run as well as a private enterprise. When one makes business decisions the political element in a state run enterprise overwhelms the strategic element since the goverment must face an election some time or another. The only thing that is important for ANY party in goverment is (much unfortunately) to be elected.So the entity would just become part of bigger scenario and in order not to lose popularity, many times tough decisions are not taken.
A private enterprise on the other hand is not accountable to anyone except the share holders. So decisions are taken in their interest only. This does not mean that a political element does not exist but it is definitely much less than state run enterprise and only exists internally.
Charles Camilleri
Aug 9th 2008, 18:21
@ L.Galea The answer is quite easy. The GWU that choses to play politics with the workers' jobs. Now Joseph has made his u turn and like Gonzi would have to follow the colonial dictators of Brussels.
@Chris Borg. Who told you that Renault and Eni were not making loses until a few years ago. All Governments whether right or left have understood that enterprises are better run by businessmen. Even Russia now understand this and is inviting business from the west to buy lose making enterprises or set up new business.
Chris Borg
Aug 9th 2008, 17:53
No State-run business can be viable? Renault and Eni were state-run up to a few years ago......
L Galea
Aug 9th 2008, 17:34
@Charles Camilleri
What stops and stopped the Government from running it like a private enterprise?
And yes.
Our Government can do nothing and is as powerful as, or rather less than a local council because it is dictated as to what it has to do by those EU colonial dictators in Brussels.
Is this what you want that unelected and unaccountable foreign dictators dictate to our government and us what we can do in our own country?
Silvan Cutajar
Aug 9th 2008, 15:41
I agree with Jimmy. Editor should take note. Probably original text is available on www.doi.gov.mt but I very much doubt the word rubbish was used. Thing is, certain journalists use "Labour is deceiving people" on a PN press statement reported. Then when it comes to a Labour statement it reads "JM accuses Government of deceipt". So the former is reported as a fact. The latter as an allegation. Then the use of words such as the one below tends to form an opinion for people. I think it is about time all journalists learn how to use neutral language.
Charles Camilleri
Aug 9th 2008, 15:13
@ L Galea. No business run by any Government can be viable. Yes it had to be orders from Eu to make Govt move and rid the taxpayers of the burden of paying of millions of Euros in subsidies.
jimmy magro
Aug 9th 2008, 14:06
I do not have the full text of the Government's statement. But is the word, as reported above, "rubbishes" politically correct. I thought we have a new way how to make politics. This word is divisive and if it was created by The Ties, the editor must issue an apology to all the intelligent readers.
Otherwise I can only come to the conclusion that the journalist has become a hamallu.
Silvan Cutajar
Aug 9th 2008, 14:01
What I find strange is the selection of words by Matthew Xuereb. I think you studied in Communications how your selection of adjectives, verbs etc effects readers. If you did actually study communications! Anyhow, the word rubbished is simply used to support the Ministry. No more no less.
L Galea
Aug 9th 2008, 11:30
What I find strange is that the Shipyard is said not to be viable while it is being run by the Government while it will be viable if run by a private firm.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that certain 'mistakes' were made on purpose which also shows why the government does not want to hold an independent inquiry into the matter, and that the privatization of the Shipyard is simply being made to follow the orders of those EU dictators in Brussels.
albert leone ganado
Aug 9th 2008, 11:05
When are we going to stop looking at the dockyard as a political ping-pong and all start thinking strategically in the best economic interest of malta and try to create a win-win situation.
The plain truth is that the dockyard is no longer viable, it is just a ponderous dinosaur using machinery skills and a business approach which are no longer valid. Any private business which will undertake to buy it will only do so for asset and real estate stripping.
The only solution is to close it. It is sitting on real estate worth millions and ripe for redevelopment as has happened in docklands all over Europe
An inner harbour free of the dockyard would be one of the unique gems in the mediterrean and its potential for generating new commercial ventures makes it worth billions.
On the other hand we can create a win-win situation if we do not bully the dockyard workers and persist in offering what is nothing more than Hobson's choice.
We could sweeten the bitter pill by offering them real incentives such as for example bonus shares in any company which sets up business in the inner harbour area.