
Friday, 15th August 2008 - 10:43CET
AD to write to European Commission on shipyards
Alternattiva Demokratika will be asking the European Commission if the government can terminate the shipyards workers’ job before the enterprise is privatised.
It will be asking if a merger or a takeover were reasons enough to terminate the jobs.
Chairman Arnold Cassola said AD believed that the way forward for the shipyards was through dialogue and not force or threats. The shipyards issue should be resolved calmly.
The threatening words during the General Workers’ Union’s Wednesday meeting, as well as the tone of the replies given by a government spokesman, were unacceptable and would not lead to anywhere.
AD social and economic development spokesman Michael Briguglio appealed to the government and the union to sit around the table and reach an agreement. He said that a mediator who enjoyed the trust of both sides should be nominated.







RSS
Comments
I am also jealous to see that most government employees (shipyard workers included) seem to expect that their job is guaranteed for life. I am not a government employee and the only guarantee I have is that I have to pay income tax.
Why not extend the early retirement schemes to the private sector? Then for any worker from the private sector who accepts one of the schemes, a shipyards' worker will be offered his job with the same salary and conditions of the private sector.
For example I fall in the first group i.e. over 55, and for one, I am more than ready to accept the offer of early retirement with the same conditions that are being offered to the shipyards' workers. Then a shipyard worker who wants and likes to work can take my work and I take the package that he is being offered.
I am sure that there are many others who are willing to do the same. This way everybody should be happy, and as they say "we all live happily ever after."
This PN lot are already ignoring so many other EU directives, why don't they simply ignore this one too?
What have governents done during the past years to retrain workers?
Although it shouldn` t be a problem for skilled workers to find alternative employment, unskilled workers have to be retrained. So far nothing has been done during the last 30 years by MLPN governments
What does he find objectionable in what I have written ? Doesn't he agree that the head-on collision which is approaching will only have losers and no winners ?
Floating voters should not forget
"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."
I hope the government instead of being pig headed listens to these words of wisdom.
If you are saying that the yard workers are so lucky, why back in 2003 only 418 (out of the 900 workers that were identified to be surplus) accepted these schemes? The fact is that these workers want to work (WHICH WAS PROMISED BY THEIR EMPLOYER BACK IN FEB 2008) and not early retirement schemes.
At the initial stage of the privatization process the government stated that these schemes are voluntary and open to everyone. In reality these schemes are not voluntary (because you can end up with nothing on Jan 2009) and are not applicable to employees employed on a definite contract.
Downsizing the present workforce is ideal to tempt prospective buyers. By first letting the workers choose their own destinity on whether to grab the retirement benefits is not a bad idea. Then GWU and Govt should dialogue on what remains after the problem have grown lighter. A compromise would be more possible. If not drydocks would have to face an unvitable natural death as the Nation is not prepared to fork out millions a year for a lost cause.
But by threathening of closure from one end and citing violence from the other is certainly very unhealthy for the social stabilty and the industrial relationship of this small "Christian" island .
As for the opposition it should disassociate from its privilged cousin's violent threats if they really want to show a new "generation" of politics. Floating voters weigh and never forget. And time flies.
Obviously the result will be a total disaster if they are ever elected in power.
Cassola was in power in Italy and we all know how the country ended under the extreme leftists.
I voted to join the European Union under the impression that workers' rights are enhanced and that problems like that of the dockyard are solved in a humane way which respects human dignity.
In this case we cannot treat 1700 people like numbers who are even denied the basic right of information. For I think that knowing that workers have a right to be consulted and informed when a company is sold rather than being forced in to retirement- a very costly thing which could simply result in a waste of human resources.
It is also ironic that whilst Government is speaking about the contribution of ageing workers to society, the same government is aiming to dispose of such workers through retirement schemes.
Scientific economic and sociological studies should show the true situation at Shipyards, including the actual number of workers required in order that it may be viable. If such studies show that workers are surplus to the Shipyards' requirements they can be involved in jobs such as the creation of alternative energy sources or, alternatively for technical work with local councils, parastatal companies or other governmental agencies.
All Shipyard workers should be in productive employment. Whilst AD is not against retirement schemes and believes that these should be available for those who need them, at the same, those who do not remain with Malta Shipyards should be re-engaged in productive ways by both the public and private sectors.
1. The government or any other private company is WITHIN ITS RIGHTS to lay down workers on the condition that bankruptcy is declared. Its sounds very ugly but lets stop for a minute and think about what are we expecting here. Are we expecting that a failing shipyard is turned into a charitable institution? If you had your own business would you run it at a loss just for the sake of supporting your employees? No...not unless you are filthy rich. So please, lets give the government a break from irrational criticism and instead start helping these workers to be constructive and find a new job.
2. The government NEVER promised NOT to downsize the shipyards. The options were always clear when the country voted for EU membership. Reform or close. It was always there, on black & white. The shipyards were given a deadline and they didnt make it. Now it is close or sell. We had to wait for the EU to impose a deadline on a bankrupt and tax hungry shipyard. It should have been closed down earlier and avoid a huge deficit in our country.
the conditions were clear right from the start so why wait for so long...
AD just do it .... talk about it later .... poplu li nintilfu fil-paroli .....
If most of the projects tackled by this government had to be considerd as companies they would have gone bankrupt and years before completion.
Please also note that government hired private companies (NOT SHIPYARD WORKERS) to carry out the works and the expenditure was much and much more than planned. Is this acceptable for you?
Why it is so quite about the Fairmount projects that costed Malta Shipyards big financial losses?
Yes the shipyard was restructured by this government in 2003 and suddenly the same government has discovered that he failed with this restructuring process like it did with most of the other projects it controlled over the years.
So do you want the government to dictate and bye bye unions and workers right??
Many have already said that there are other solutions for the shipyards instead of what the government is proposing. Among them Lino Spiteri.
Please give me a valid answer for my queries.
Please remember that last February THE GOVERNMENT made a statement whereby he stated that there will be no downsizing in Malta Shipyards. A fact that is omitted is that the Prime Minister in his speech about the privatization stated that the schemes were going to be voluntary and for every one.
The fact is that there are employees of MaltaShipyards that are excluded from the schemes because they have a definite contract and when their contract expires they will end up without a job.
Please remember that on 7th December the government made an agreement with UHM where 1300 civil servants with a definite contract where given an indefinite contract. The agreement applied to government workers and civil servants who were on definite contract , even in cases where the four obligatory years have not been covered. The fact is that both these civil servants and shipyards employees are employed by the same government of Malta. So please can some one gives me a valid reason why these employees where given the status of indefine contract while Malta Shipyards workers were excluded? Can government discriminate between his employees?
Solutions will be found only as a result of frank discussions. Without threats of closure or use of force.
Castille is not the government's and the streets do not belong to the GWU.
If government puts aside its closure threats (which only cropped up after March 8) and the GWU restricts itself to a civil discussion, a solution can be found.
If not the whole country will lose. Losses are not just financial. Unnecessary social friction is an unacceptable cost which cannot be ignored.
For a start, government should adjust its talk such that it is clear that it is accepting that it is dealing with human persons, and not numbers on an accounting ledger.
salvu portelli