AD to write to European Commission on shipyards

P Muscat

Aug 16th 2008, 09:19

@ Mr Adrian Bonanno and Mr Joseph Piscopo - My comment was for those eligible and not for the 95 (6%) who have a definite contract. For those who have a definite contract I feel that the title of their contract says it all. The rules of a definite contract are binding to both parties. My jealousy goes for getting two years salary± at the end of it all. Most private employers would probably give two handshakes!
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.

Carmel Cachia

Aug 16th 2008, 08:53

I think that I have a solution.
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."

N. Lawrence

Aug 16th 2008, 05:25

Many comments about "funds will have to stop because of EU directives".

This PN lot are already ignoring so many other EU directives, why don't they simply ignore this one too?

Enzo Cachia

Aug 16th 2008, 00:10

The dockyard workers should only say a big thank you to our bravi politicians who kept recruiting staff on the eve of almost every election to attract votes. This not to mention that the MDD`s balance sheet has been in the red since donkey years.

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

Liam Borg

Aug 15th 2008, 22:28

According to Malcolm Seychell, floating voters should beware. If floating voters are only after personal interests, dismantling the welfare state, degrading human rights and supplying more and more power to the central government and the elite than I perhaps should consider leaving this country for good.

Francis Attard

Aug 15th 2008, 20:14

Dr.Joseph Muscat has a duty, as an MEP to present a motion in the European parliament so that the Drydocks will continue to get state subsidies so that it will not be privatized and subsequently it will employ whoever, from the private sector loses his job. If it need be the government should increase taxes.

Adrian Bonanno

Aug 15th 2008, 19:27

@MP Muscat I cannot understand why you are jealous at some one that is going to lose his job? There are 95 employees with a definite contract. These 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 last 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. The fact is that both these workers and shipyards employees are employed by the same government of Malta. Please also 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 PrimeMinister in his speech about the privatization stated that the schemes were going to be voluntary and for everyone. Now please tell me are you still jealous to these employees and 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?

Carmel Cacopardo

Aug 15th 2008, 19:16

@Charles Camilleri

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 ?

Charles Camilleri

Aug 15th 2008, 19:06

Mike this is what the Govt has been doing and is going to do with the present dockyards workers who chose one of the schemes. Retired workers have been retrained by the ETC and now are doing a good job in the new place of work. There are many jobs ready for those who want to have a go in other environment rather than the yard. This is not dumping the workers but rather helping them to find new jobs. This is what the country needs if we want to continue with the present economical progress.People in real productive work and not non productive workers squeezing money out of the taxpayers.Local council work is not productive work. Govt will still be forking out money many times for rather an easy going work. Mike the dockyards workers have been abused by the union and politicians for too long and perhaps this one of the main reason why they are in this present precarious situation. By taking your position you are only joining those forces The end now has come. The yards workers must be taught that no one owes them a living.

Robert Nock

Aug 15th 2008, 19:06

As a 'Brit' living in malta, I have no right to interfere in your internal affairs. However, I am a tax payer in malta and have been following the Malta Shipyards saga with interest Does AD realise that no empolyer (Govenment or otherwise) is obliged to retain employees that are surplus to their business requirements. Does AD realise that no subsidies will be available to the shipyards after 31st December 2008 and that the empolyees cannot be paid after that date due to insufficient funds. As a former union representative in the UK I would express my sympathy to the shipyard workers who are currently affected, but times move on. No job is secure for life. Just look at what has happened in the recent past in the UK - The miners strike (a nationalised industry) - great disruption but no result for the miners. The Fleet Street (newspapers) debacle where printers thought that it was their right to have jobs for life - Not so, this is now a streamlined industry, competetive in today's world. Please accept the inevitable and get the best deal that is available, then move forward and onwards to a new future. Bob Nock Mellieha

Malcolm Seychell

Aug 15th 2008, 18:59

This move can cost the country more and more millions of euro.

Floating voters should not forget

james debono

Aug 15th 2008, 18:38

I think that the best solution was that proposed by Lino Spiteri:
"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.

Joseph Piscopo

Aug 15th 2008, 18:32

@Mr P Muscat

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.

C Galea

Aug 15th 2008, 18:13

I can't understand all this jargon. The matter shouldn't have been politicised in the first place. Everybody understands that by December '08 subsidy by government must stop as per EU directives. On the other hand it appears that all key players agree on privatisation as the only survival for the drydocks.

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.

Michael Briguglio

Aug 15th 2008, 17:46

@ Charles Camilleri. The issue is not charity but productivity. Such skilled workers should be used to increase Malta's productivity, and not dumped through retirement schemes. Malta has the lowest Employment rate in the EU, and yet Government persists in dumping workers instead of doing its utmost to increase productivity. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that they should work in ship-related activities. There are so many areas which require skilled work - alternative energy and local councils immediately come to mind. But this has to be verified through a scientific study. Government did not inform the public how it arrived at the 700 worker figure.

P Muscat

Aug 15th 2008, 17:10

The Early Retirement Schemes are all voluntary and seem to represent a maximum of two years' salary ± to those eligible and with very little ties thereafter. This is a generous deal for the Shipyards workers I think. Go for it and good luck. I am simply jealous

Charles Camilleri

Aug 15th 2008, 16:55

@ J. Debono & M. Briguglio. The problem of lame ducks are not solved by turning them into charitable institutions. Countries where they tried this method had to pay dearly as the whole country went bankrupt. The former soviet occupied countries are examples.

Chris Borg

Aug 15th 2008, 16:31

@ KArl Abela. GonziPN DID promise that there would be no downsizing. Fact.

C.Camilleri

Aug 15th 2008, 15:42

Is this this the same Carmel Cacopardo i know?

Charles Camilleri

Aug 15th 2008, 15:36

I cannot any bad treatment towards the yard workers. In fact they had been given the best treatment ever given to any worker. They have been warned about their outdated work practices for long, yet they refused to change them. They have warned long ago about the poor output, yet they continued to give only a couple of hours each day. Still they continued to burden the taxpayer with millions in subsidies. Now on top of all this they are given a golden handshake worth E45 millions. Which private productive worker has ever been given such treatment. While all this fuss about the yard workers who past is not a pleasant one, but not one word about many other workers who are discharged without any ceremony. It is clear that there are those who want to have a ride on the back of the yard workers. It is clear that even to the very end they are being used for political ends.

Malcolm Seychell

Aug 15th 2008, 15:32

It is clear that AD and MLP are moving closer and closer to each other.

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.

Francis Attard

Aug 15th 2008, 15:18

Dr.Joseph Muscat should take AD's example and, since he is still an MEP, he should present a motion in the European Parliament so that the Drydocks will continue to get state subsidies and life will then goes on as usual at the yards.

james debono

Aug 15th 2008, 15:15

I think this is a highly commendable initiative by Alternattiva Demokratika.
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.

Michael Briguglio

Aug 15th 2008, 14:58

\Work is one of the most important family values and gives dignity to the human being. It is ironic that Shipyard workers, whose productive skills are an essential resource, are being treated as mere numbers by a Government which speaks so much about family values and work!

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.

B Sant

Aug 15th 2008, 14:56

Well said Mr Cacopardo...... i bet if anyone's relatives worked at the shipyard no one would point a finger , and it seems this is a govt of two weights two measures.... being so weak to contol the workers now he wants to bully everyone!!!!!

Karl Abela

Aug 15th 2008, 14:01

Lets get some facts right:
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.

Marco Desira

Aug 15th 2008, 12:56

AD to write .....what are you waiting for ....
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 .....

M Vassallo

Aug 15th 2008, 12:48

@C Buttigieg

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.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Aug 15th 2008, 12:46

My oh my...Is this possible?someone else is against the way the workers are treated....

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Aug 15th 2008, 12:46

To the person who asked me what I've been drinking, the answer is Coke Zero, but precisely what this has to do with my comment is not entirely clear. For those whose brains the heat has clearly addled, my comment merely addresses what I perceive to be the futility of Dr Cassola's writing to the Commission for an interpretation of the law.

Mario Bonnici

Aug 15th 2008, 12:08

Reading various comments about the shipyards give the impression that many just want the government to treat the workers as animals. Remember that here we're talking about the future of more than a thousand workers, with families. Don't they have the right to fight for a better deal??
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.

magro vincent

Aug 15th 2008, 11:59

what ever ABC drank this morning i thing that whoever critizise somthing, should bring forward a solution.

Adrian Bonanno

Aug 15th 2008, 11:59

@Andrew Borg Cardona.

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?

Carmel Cacopardo

Aug 15th 2008, 11:49

A forty year problem cannot be solved overnight. It is not in the country's interest to treat Docyard workers inhumanely. Even though they were used and abused by the major political parties through the years.

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.

Alfred Sant

Aug 15th 2008, 11:39

what did you drink this morning ABC ?

s portelli

Aug 15th 2008, 11:37

AD - The party with no solutions. Having them in govt or coalition will be really a nightmare. Unpredictable types. No alternative at all.
salvu portelli

C Buttigieg

Aug 15th 2008, 11:26

I hope they don't forget to mention that it is a bankrupt institution and that it is costing Malta millions to keep in operation

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Aug 15th 2008, 11:08

And why will no-one be surprised when the Commission gives an answer that will be interpreted in a way that will suit everyone and get us precisely nowhere? That is, if it gives an answer at all and doesn't tell Dr Cassola that the interpretation of law is a function of the courts and not of the Commission.