Lino Spiteri
Wrong-ending story
The never-ending story of disbursements of public funds to keep the dockyard going is heading towards a wrong ending. Everyone now agrees in principle that the 'yard should be privatised. The way the government is going about doing it, however, could jeopardise the objective. It is basing itself on two assumptions. One, that according to EU, law a private entity that buys the 'yard will be stuck with the employees and conditions of employment it takes over. The other, that the four main activities which presently engage 1,627 employees will not support even half that number.
If assumption one seems to be well based, similar assurance is not there regarding the second, which arose from unnamed expert advice. Similar advice was already found wanting once. Before 2003, the government was advised the dockyard did not require more than 1,700 workers. It whittled the workforce down to that level through employee buyouts, getting the balance of skills wrong in the process. It now results that even the number was wrong. Irrespective of productivity inadequacy and huge losses reportedly made on a mysterious contract or two, anonymous experts now put the 'yard's total requirement at a fraction of that set five years ago.
The government, therefore, has published four schemes to entice workers to apply to leave their 'yard job and good luck to them if they find a job elsewhere clutching a fistful of euros, or enjoy wasteful early retirement. The authorities have also made a remarkable commitment - all applications under the four schemes will be accepted. Hypothetically, therefore, if all the 1,627 employees respond positively to the schemes of the Ministry of Finance, the private interests that eventually take over the 'yard will buy into land and equipment, without any human resources.
Try another hypothesis. Of the 1,627 employees, all those who hold a trade required by a modern ship and yacht maintenance 'yard (or 'yards) apply under the schemes, and so leave. Private bidders would be applying for a 'yard whose workers do not hold the requisite skills. One can make various similar permutations. Each and all would show the absurdity of the way the government is trying to privatise the 'yard. For some reason the government is refusing to go about its objective through the obvious realistic way. Which is, to invite offers on the basis of a business plan which, among other things, sets out how many workers the bidder would require to start with, and in what grades - with the undertaking by the government that it would reduce the workforce to that level by the time the deal was done.
The authorities refuse to contemplate that they are in error in trying to shed off tradesmen before knowing how many are actually required. Do not be surprised if several hundred employees apply for one of the exit schemes, only for the government to find that potential bidders cannot work adequately with the numbers and skills-mix thereof left on the 'yard's books.
Surely, there is a better way forward. See what business plans are presented to determine the overall most advantageous offer; see what the jobs element in it is; put forward early-leaving schemes; see what the residual who prefer to continue to work in the maritime sector is and assist the workers involved to form a cooperative, carefully helped along with the unutilised balance of €49 million of public funds which the Finance Minister said was the limit which the employee shedding should cost.
If, instead, the government continues to be pigheaded and sheds workers, irrespective of what the private bidders' requirements might be, we are in for further waste of public funds, possibly to make way for a 'yard staffed by expatriate workers and - ironically - a sprinkling from among those who take money under one of the four schemes. Can any sensible government be so short-sighted? So determined to write the wrong script?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Aug 25th 2008, 19:55
Poland - which fights tooth and nail, in all ways and at every chance to obtain the BEST deal for its people (rather than simply bow its head to the masters above) - has thrice now avoided EU intervention (closure) of its yards, the final time using the simple excuse that:
"Gdansk on the Baltic sea coast is a major political icon in Poland. The Solidarity movement was founded by Lech Walesa ...in 1980 and it became a central force leading to Communism's downfall in Eastern Europe"
If a reprieve is given based on THAT, then what reprieve can our docks get based on our history???!
We'd then wait to see the result that Poland will get on 12th September - yet another postive result, no doubt!
If they get a positive result for themselves then it would then just be a matter of "what's good for the goose..."
The question is: is there a WILL to safeguard the workers's jobs or is the rumour that yet another asset is to be given away, on the cheap correct...?
Finally, if the dockyard is a "huge, failing" business then there shouldn't be any takers - no one is THAT stupid......
Right?
Francis Attard
Aug 11th 2008, 20:59
Why don't you call it a day Mr.Spiteri. Your sermons are no longer needed. You had your turn to prove yourself and that really didn't deserve a Nobel Prize. Instead of continuing writing nonsense why don't you dedicate your time trying to find a solution for income tax evasion. Maybe if you succeed you will have a very good chance to be nominated for a Nobel Prize.
J. Borg
Aug 11th 2008, 19:35
This will end up by blaming it on the GWU.
The GWU has been saying this all the way, lets talk and see who and what the companies interested want and then issue the ERS. But NO, the government has decided that this is how it should act because the cabinet has decided. Not the first time we heard these words.
This all shows how a stubborn government we have. Grow up and see what the people are saying and go to the table and discuss matters on a national basis. How is it that we are seeing the finance minister here and we don't hear from the prime minister.
This is a national issue and all should be involved....ther is still time for talk!!!!!
jimmy magro
Aug 11th 2008, 18:19
The dockyard saga is a political game. The PN had long ago decided to close down the plant by 2008. The decision has been taken by a foreign party - the EU. I am not a shiprepair/shipbuilding expert but when a review report was made by a consultant when Labour took office during 1996-1998, and handed over to me by the Prime Minister for comments, I immediately noticed one big missing element. There was no reference to the Marketing Department or any hint that there should be a Marketing Department at MDD. The PM came back telling me that he was impresed by my report and will continue to furnish more similar reports.
I would like to know how other docks in the old EU member countries have continued to operate shiprepair/shipbuilding enterprises, while for the new members the EU offered the guillotine. Are there any double standards? Where are our MEP's to enlighten us?
We cannot continue to argue that no industrial activity is sustainable on our Island. Do we believe that Malta can absord all its employable population in financial services, tourism, gaming and ITC? We need to re-assess our industrial strategy.
Keith SC Grech
Aug 11th 2008, 16:29
Business boils down to profits. If no profits are made the company should go into liquidation. End of story. Every worker should consider why the company failed to make profits for such a long time. If it is the cause of unecessary political intervention or inflexibility due to union pressure, the workers should unite and take the respective party to court for compensation.
Louis Gialanze
Aug 11th 2008, 15:04
Unless I'm mistaken one report drawn up by a german firm (the name escapes me) talked about manning levels of 200 - 230 per dock and production efficiency levels of 89 per cent. People out there in the know please do correct me. Unfortunately the report was never acted upon and shoved down in the dustbin. Of course, this was way back at least 15 years and conditions must have changed drastically for the worse. Lino must be aware of such a report(s) - several of which were commissioned under former labour administrations. Hopefully the long and drawn out saga will finally come to an end much to the relief of the long suffering taxpayer.
Joseph Agius
Aug 11th 2008, 12:30
I find it hard to dispute Lino Spiteri's logic on this topic. It would therefore be appreciated if government gave us their counterarguments explaining why they intend to ignore this advice and keep plodding into what could turn out to be another financial and commercial disaster.
Charles Ebejer
Aug 11th 2008, 12:09
"the obvious realistic way" verges on the idealistic.The ideal would be for the workers to be assessed and those selected to undergo a probationary period.The prolonged work habits never die and the new enterprise would have to indulge in Bond-like efforts to raise the productivity of the workers to what is the norm The possibility is that they would not succeed..
The government ,making the schemes voluntary, is doing the workers a great favour and they should make the best of the schemes made available to them.The new enerprise taking over would prefer to select its workfordce according to its established standards.Only in this way the ending would not be on the wrong side.
carmel tonna
Aug 11th 2008, 11:27
Still discussing a problem which should have been solved years ago. The dockyard is not some global complex business.
The dockyard is a relatively small business unit with a highly defined physical perimeter. Objectives are clear, environment mostly stable and threats known. So I never understood the mystery surrounding solutions proposed.
It seems that our national passtime is to defer decisions and promote confusion in order to entertain ourselves. My regrets are that it is the workers who are going to bear the brunt of our foolishness.
laurence schembri
Aug 11th 2008, 10:42
A script can easily be edited, amended, re-written and rehearsed to alter the whole concept of a drama, a play, even tragi-comedy.
The problem Lino is, where will one get the expertise?