General Workers' Union general secretary Tony Zarb is optimistic he can strike a deal over shipyard workers without taking to the streets. Nevertheless, he tells Herman Grech that nobody should ever take away workers' fundamental rights to street protests.

The shipyards have been soaking up public funds for decades now. Do you blame the government for finally deciding to privatise it?

We are not against privatising the 'yards. What we demanded was that workers' representatives be involved in the process from the outset to ensure things are done in the correct manner. We would like to have been consulted, at least, before the process started. But this didn't happen.

What would you do with the shipyards?

I would try to find the best way to make them work. The five-year restructuring programme we embarked upon in 2003 was meant to lead to a system of zero subsidies. In the first three years, the programme worked well but in the past two years, the shipyards' top management took the ill-fated decision on the Fairmount ship conversion contract, which led to an €80 million loss.

The dockyard earned €21 million from 30 cases of ship repair in the last two years alone. If we didn't have the Fairmount problem and if the shipyards had concentrated on ship repair it would no longer need subsidies. We are insisting on a public inquiry into the Fairmount contract and the case should go before the Public Accounts Committee.

The shipyards have been suffering from too many accumulative losses over the years.

Yes, but in 2003 we embarked on a process to bring the shipyard back on its feet. And we would have managed.

Around 18 months ago Investments Minister Austin Gatt was already sounding the alarm bells.

That's when the Fairmount issue cropped up.

So do you still believe that the shipyards can be profitable with its current workforce?

We are not against restructuring, which has to be an ongoing process. But I would like to ask whether the shipyards have invested in new machinery in the past 10 years.

The GWU has called for guaranteed employment for those workers who decide to stay on after the privatisation. Aren't you asking for too much when the government is offering early retirement schemes, which are often not offered in the private sector?

The government has offered better schemes in companies in which it held shares.

These schemes are going to cost the taxpayer millions.

They will cost €49 million, but only if all 1,700 workers apply. The government itself is saying that the 'yards need 700 workers. We are saying that those who do not opt for these schemes should be guaranteed employment. The Transfer of Business Act, which was transposed from EU law onto the Maltese statute books last year, stipulates that a business changing hands shall not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal of employees by both the seller and buyer.

The government said the clause was included because the number of workers on the books still had to be determined once the retirement schemes process was over.

We are not putting pressure on any workers to refuse the retirement schemes. We're telling them to hold on until the schemes are refined...

And yet I'm informed that nearly 250 workers have applied for the schemes so far, despite the GWU's appeal to workers not to take them.

This proves that the GWU is not putting pressure on the workers to refuse these schemes.

Do you think it undermines the union's influence?

Not at all. Finance Minister Tonio Fenech has already made it clear that the government is willing to make up the difference if the schemes are amended.

Are you surprised that so far 250 workers have opted for the scheme?

No, I'm not. Perhaps they have other jobs lined up and want to quit. Maybe they are those over 56 who would prefer to get the two-thirds pension and stay at home.

There was a clear difference in your pacific tone during the first public meeting with shipyard workers and the harsh tone during the meeting at Paola. What happened in between?

During the first meeting we hadn't yet met with the government. When we met in Paola, we had had the meeting and the government was intransigent. Since then, things have moved. We had to put our message across to the government in a strong tone and warned that if it refused to talk to us and find a solution it would have left us with no alternative other than to take to the streets.

Will you take to the streets?

If the government leaves you with no other option, that's your last resort. What's wrong with it? In Malta it seems to have become sacrilege for workers to take to the streets.

The public transport operators managed to turn public sympathy against them in the space of three days. Don't you fear that the same could happen with the dockyard workers?

They turned public sympathy against them because of the incidents which took place.

Aren't such protests a throwback to the past? Should unions still take to the streets?

Why not?

Do you sincerely believe you can rally public sympathy this way?

A union should never renounce its right to take to the streets, the same way it should never renounce its right to industrial action.

Do you believe that militancy is an effective tool for fighting your cause nowadays?

Unfortunately, the Maltese media in general do not like militancy. When you go to Europe there seems to be no problem with French and Italian workers protesting in the streets. German workers recently took to the streets... The media overseas actually promote this kind of manifestation. The contrary is the case in Malta. If you threaten Maltese workers with their job, without giving them the chance to negotiate to find a solution, then the streets are the only solution.

I can't recall a single local campaign in recent history which has yielded success because of street protests.

You're wrong. The Issa Daqshekk campaign was effective.

Do you really think it worked?

Yes, because the government held back from introducing massive austerity measures in that budget.

Which measures?

We knew that the government was planning to introduce austerity measures.

What proof do you have that the street protests held the government back?

I believe that campaign put the brakes on the government.

During the meeting in Paola, former Malta Drydocks council chairman Sammy Meilaq spoke in terms of toppling the government. Labour leader Joseph Muscat was among those who distanced himself from these militant stands.

Joseph Muscat said he wouldn't make those kinds of comments. Sammy Meilaq felt he should.

Do you agree with his comments?

When you're fighting for your existence, it's not the end of the world when you say something of the sort. It's better to say these things publicly than find an entrance to Castille through the back door.

Who are you referring to?

Don't you believe there are individuals who enter Castille to put pressure and get whatever they want?

You said the privatisation of the shipyards would not be like that of Sea Malta, when the government had blamed the union for its liquidation after failure to reach agreement. You said 'try to do that and you will see what will happen in this country'. What did you mean?

We're convinced that during the Sea Malta negotiations, exponents from the government approached workers to quit the GWU. In fact, several workers resigned en masse from the union while we were still carrying out the negotiations on their behalf. The government then had the cheek to blame us.

Are you implying that the government is trying to buy the shipyard workers out?

I'm urging the government not to do the same thing. We won't let the government repeat it.

And if it does?

There will be trouble.

What kind of trouble?

We will protest. How can we allow a government to incite workers, our members, every time we have a dispute? It does this to put workers off the GWU and then it blames the union.

Some people believe the government is going about the privatisation process in the wrong way, possibly even breaching EU laws, and yet they are failing to sympathise with the GWU's cause. Do you fear that the GWU has lost its muscle and voice?

The feedback we're getting from workers from different sectors is contrary to what you're saying. They're telling us to beware (of the government) and we're being very cautious. There have been developments since the Paola meeting. Through the mediator we've been meeting regularly. Ultimately, we want to strike an agreement. We don't want to take to the streets.

Do you see scope for an agreement?

Yes. The mediator got the two sides closer to each other. He's done a sterling job. Both sides trust him, but I wouldn't like to make his name public. During the past week, we've inched closer to each other and before we know it we could strike a deal.

What agreement are you hoping for?

Everything's on the table.

Do you agree that the number of workers at the shipyards should go down to 700?

In the past four years, we spoke to three individuals who were interested in playing a role in the shipyards, either as a strategic partner or through privatisation. None of them said they would reduce the number of workers.

So why should it be in the government's interest to fork out money for early retirement schemes?

Maybe the government has received different feedback from other operators. It's wise to ask at this point whether the 700 remaining workers would be skilled or unskilled. We could end up in a situation where the buyer ends up with a shipyard of unskilled workers. And what's going to happen then? I would like to point out that at the moment we're discussing the 'flexicurity' concept within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development. Is this the flexicurity we want for the shipyard workers?

During the Paola meeting, apart from Joseph Muscat there were two former leaders of the Labour Party. There seems to be an eternal tie between the GWU and MLP...

...That's incorrect. Two days before the meeting we appealed to anybody who sympathised with our cause to attend the meeting. Alternattiva Demokratika, Graffitti, Żminijietna and the Labour Party were there. I can assure you there was no prior agreement with the Labour Party.

Joseph Muscat has been at the helm of the MLP since June. Do you have a good relationship?

It's good. He is attentive to our concerns and sympathises with the workers' causes.

Do you think Lawrence Gonzi sympathises with the workers' causes?

When Gonzi was Social Policy Minister we used to hold discussions with him over the first phase of the drydocks restructuring. We dealt with him on a couple of hot topics and we used to hammer out solutions. I've seen a big change between Gonzi then and the one I see today.

A change for the worse?

For me, where workers are concerned, he's taken a turn for the worse - and I told him this.

There are rumours of attempts to reinstate (former legal adviser) George Abela within the GWU. Are these correct?

I categorically deny any such attempts.

Do you think George Abela's exit has been a loss to your union?

George Abela felt that way, the GWU felt it should assume the position it took at the time and he quit the union.

What kind of relationship does the union have with him at the moment?

There is hardly any contact.

I think you'll agree with me that the GWU has been keeping a very low profile in the last year or so since the spate of resignations. Is it weaker?

That's not true. There's a lot of work going on. The perception of people is that you're not doing much if you're not appearing in the media.

Are you happy with the number of members?

We're satisfied with the number. Of course, we took blows with the closure of Denim, VF, Bortex and the early retirement schemes.

Do you feel that the shipyards saga will deal another blow?

Of course - it could be.

Could it be the death knell for the GWU?

Definitely not!