Updated: Dockyard deal reached, schemes to cost €9m more
(MLP and PN statements added)
The government and the GWU have reached agreement on the privatisation of Malta Shipyards.
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech and GWU general Secretary Tony Zarb in a joint press conference said the early retirement schemes for the dockyard workers had been "refined" to the extent that should all workers take them up, the total cost will rise by €9 million to €58 million. 337 workers have applied so far.
Workers who do not take up the schemes will be taken on by the new employer. But should the employer opt to take on fewer workers than are still on the shipyard books, a government-union commission would be formed to assess their skills and train them as required for the productive sector.
The agreement was reached after talks overseen by mediator Joe Farrugia, director-general of the Malta Employers' Association, who was praised by both sides for the many hours he dedicated to this issue since he offered his services three weeks ago.
Both sides said they were committed to an efficient privatisation process, and the government said it would keep the union fully informed of the process. The two sides agreed to work together so that workers who take up the retirement schemes would be reintegrated in the employment sector as quickly as possible.
The government issued an international call for expressions of interest in Malta Shipyards on August 11. The offer closes on September 15. It also launched the early retirement schemes in an effort to reduce the current workforce of 1,627 shipyard workers to around 700.
Mr Fenech had explained that the workforce needed to be reduced immediately so that the dockyard could be more attractive to potential investors.
Congratulatory statements were issued by the Labour and Nationalist parties.
The Labour Party welcomed the agreement and said it believed it was the best step in the national interest.
It said it had acted responsibly, expressing support with the workers while appealing for discussion and moderation.
Rather than seeking popularity, it worked for a solution to be found. Its appeal had always been for the process to be based on consultations and discussions with the representatives of the workers.
The Nationalist Party said the agreement will lead to a more efficient privatisation in the best interests of the country and the workers.
The country, it said, could not have kept giving the yards subsidies as these were paid for by the people. The country could, with good will, overcome its challenges and the privatisation of the shipyard was an important part of the country’s reform agenda.
It expressed its satisfaction that common sense had finally prevailed.
70 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
V Fenech
Sep 19th 2008, 01:46
@ Robert Axiak
I think it's better not to rush into conclusions whenever Labour is mentioned. You should have imposed another question: who would be that stupid to sacrifice his abilities as a skilled yard worker in order to go sweeping streets with an IPSL company???
You should also know that in the dockyard population there exists those who are less skilled and would be ideal to work with IPSL companies if there is room for them. Last but not the least, you should become aware of one single fact: Joseph Muscat did not mentioned IPSL companies as the only ideal situation but as part of a plan which the government is avoiding to set up.
But it seems that you only pick those things which suit you from a complete article rather than absorbing and discussing the most practical issues!!!
V Fenech
Sep 19th 2008, 01:46
@ Robert Axiak
I think it's better not to rush into conclusions whenever Labour is mentioned. You should have imposed another question: who would be that stupid to sacrifice his abilities as a skilled yard worker in order to go sweeping streets with an IPSL company???
You should also know that in the dockyard population there exists those who are less skilled and would be ideal to work with IPSL companies if there is room for them. Last but not the least, you should become aware of one single fact: Joseph Muscat did not mentioned IPSL companies as the only ideal situation but as part of a plan which the government is avoiding to set up.
But it seems that you only pick those things which suit you from a complete article rather than absorbing and discussing the most practical issues!!!
Adrian Bonanno
Sep 6th 2008, 20:19
@ Silvan Cutajar
Do you know that last 7th December the government made an agreement where every employee with a definite contract even if he was employed for less than 4 years his status was changed to an indefinite one. This agreement was for everyone except Maltashipyards employees.
Why Maltashipyards employees were excluded ? I would like that you would give a valid reason?
Also there is LN429 ta’ 2002 that stipulates. “Employees on a contract of service for a fixed term shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent employees solely because they have a contract of service for a fixed term.”
Please also note that schemes are made by government for social justice. Do you consider definite contact employees inferior citizens and hey should not be included in this net of social justice? There is no law that stipulates that definite contract employees should be excluded.
Robert Axiak
Sep 6th 2008, 19:05
@V Fenech
You state Labour never proposed that all workers join IPSL.
Check this:
http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/articles/view/20080808/local/give-yard-workers-a-real-choice-says-labour-leader
"Shipyards workers should be given the option to join IPSL if they do not opt for an early retirement scheme, Labour Leader Joseph Muscat said yesterday."
Ok..JM did not say all workers should go there -but come on be fair - how many workers would have risked leaving the yards had Government given such a guarantee (ie IPSL job?)
that offer would have been tantamount to an IPSL job - for life - which costs much much more than a once 50 million expenditure!!
Joseph Attard
Sep 6th 2008, 18:56
@Albert Stivala
Dont get me wrong. Im all in favour of privatization of the docks, but privitization means so. If privitization means that we are taking off the burden of a few hundred workers and giving it to someone in the private sector who only thinks about the bottom line, then reality is we are burdened for a life time with those others who do not want to take up a retirment scheme or have been taken on by the new owners.
The Government should have stuck to its guns, those who do not take up the schemes and are not taken on by the new owners are out of a job. That way they would have had to definately opt for Schemes. After all over a third of the debts that Malta has today are the responsibility of all those Dockyard workers, managment and staff. Im not pionting fingers at the workers here, most times the fruit is rotten from the top!
Joseph Borg
Sep 6th 2008, 17:59
"The Labour Party welcomed the agreement and said it believed it was the best step in the national interest."
"The Nationalist Party said the agreement will lead to a more efficient privatisation in the best interests of the country and the workers."
"The country, it said, could not have kept giving the yards subsidies as these were paid for by the people. "
I, (part of the PEOPLE), would like to know if dockyard employees who will be rejoining the new privately own shipyard, will be required to give back the sum that the goverment will be donating them as a gift for leaving in the first place. That would be a fair deal!!!!
Silvan Cutajar
Sep 6th 2008, 14:18
@ Adrian Bonanno - You really expect Government to splash in money for contract employees? The very nature of a fixed term contract is that it has an end e.g 1 year. So if I am engaged for a year and aged near retirement age, you imagine I should be offered early retirement for 5 years till I retire when my sole obligation is 1 year of fixed term contract! Come on...its non sense! My contract would expire upon its end of term. Nothing more and nothing less. The obligation is what it is....employment for a fixed term duration!
V Fenech
Sep 6th 2008, 13:07
Albert Stivala, you're wrong!!!
Joseph Muscat DID NOT PROPOSE that ALL workers should be transferred to IPSL companies. You're totally wrong, making a mistake by quoting the government who wanted to shift his irresponsibility onto the labour party. The Minister also hoped that the labour party will refer to the European Commission so that he would feel comfortable to accuse labour of opposing privatisation. The same goes for the IPSL issue, which the government is trying to bring in his favour.
The public should be reminded that not all shipyards' workers are that so much skillful. There are those who may be appropriate as an IPSL worker. Remember all those praises by the PN regarding the IPSL??????
Or maybe you're so much concerned about the workers chanting a common song:
"TAGHNA L-HABEL BIEX NITGHALLQU!!!!"
V Fenech
Sep 6th 2008, 11:23
When reading this article and the following comments, it is unavoidable to read and think about what Franco Farrugia commented.
The further 9mil. sum is going to be paid from already-loaded taxpayers who some few days age were participating in blogs by clearly stating that they do not care for any dockyard worker. One has to be reminded that at those times, these taxpayers were on the defensive side with the government in his attempt to cheat the dockyards' workers. Now that the Government has turned his mind, these are merrily wishing big congratulations to the workers and Tonio the Minister. In fact the latter has shifted the incompetence of his party in managing the dockyard performance onto the taxpayers' shoulders.
Just imagine how could the workers ended up if they had not shown up themselves as a common front together with their union, MLP, AD and other minor organisations. That could have improved matters when mentioning the MLP leader and all the others showing solidarity with the workers and appealing to the government to behave in a democratic way!
Albert Stivala
Sep 6th 2008, 11:09
@Joseph Attard
what you are forgetting again is that should the workers remain at the yards and govt keep subsidising the industry....the outlay from our taxes would have been much worse..
For all you here complaining about how much we will pay: this committment will cost Government 50-60 million Euro (if all workers take it up)
MLP/J Muscat proposed that IPSL (government) takes ALL workers within its fold. That woudl mean around 50-60 million Euro ANNUALLY and not just once!!
What about that?!
Joseph Attard
Sep 6th 2008, 10:18
It seems as though this dockyard pain will never cease to end. Like IPSL we will soon have another monstrosity paid out of public coffers. Can the government make the agreement reached public, so we can read btw the lines? The article states that those who do not take up the schemes will be "taken on by the new employer". But should the employer opt to take less workers then those left, then thereis a process! the process is simple, none are to loose their jobs and the "kaxxa ta Malta" will take the burden.
One day many years back myself and a freind sat down at school and discussed our future, whether to become priests, monks, drydock workers, haddiema tal gvern, or working for private industry. He opted to be a priest at the end while I went into private industry. Pity Drydocks would have been a great option, ure never out of a job...ure there for life !
Is there money only for MDD, tell me what about Local Councils? I would ask AKL to leave no stone unturned to make sure Local Councils are well funded so we have better and greener communities. Money no problem hbieb!
Ing. Stefano Cremona
Sep 6th 2008, 09:18
How disappointing!
When the private company i worked with went bankrupt some 6 years ago, i got nothing, no handshakes, no benefits, rien!!!!
Thank you Mr. Fenech, more taxes to pay!!!!!! EUR9 million more!!!!!
But then again this is Malta and we have to accept this, a weak government that gets elected because of a weaker opposition.
albert leone ganado
Sep 6th 2008, 08:57
Well done to all parties concerned including the mediator
The three parties have spared the country industrial unrest which we cannot afford in this highly competitive business climate.
Let us hope that this agreement is really the closure of a saga which has cost the country hundreds of millions in the last twenty years.
It is important now that the outline agreement is gone over by experts to ensure that no loose ends are left which will rear their ugly head once again in future. Let us hope that this is the last time the taxpayer will be asked to fork out money.
Let us hope that the agreement is spread over a sufficient amount of time so that key workers leaving will not have to be reemployed at a higher wage . This is what often happens in radical restructuring and downsizing exercises.
Let us all prospect a better future for this sector
Adrian Bonanno
Sep 6th 2008, 08:28
I am happy for my colleagues at the shipyards, that after such turmoil an agreement was finally reached, but I must say I am deluded with the attitude of GWU. Mr.Zarb said all shipyard employees can sleep comfortably today. Does he know that this agreement excluded those with a definite contract?
Why GWU is celebrating victory while there are a number of employees that if they resign from the shipyards they will get nothing, while others will get thousands of Euros. Is this social justice? Are they omitted because the number is small (less than 50 employees with definite contract). If the number was larger would the GWU accepted such an agreement?
Please also remember that last December the government made a memorandum of understating with UHM where 1300 government employees with a definite contract were granted an indefinite contract (gew tal-post). Why Matashipyards employees were excluded from this agreement? Are they 2nd class citizens?
a.borg
Sep 6th 2008, 08:25
this was like a sale of a car. when you want to sell a car you say 1050 euros. when the other oppose you seem to be kind and take off the 50. this was the same. the gov. had a budget but first he showed a little of it. when the union opposed he then showed the true sums. the union won nothing. the cunning gov. put the union quietly now. This was the true sum not the first one. Thanks mr. prime minister for being so kind,
N.Azzopardi
Sep 6th 2008, 01:41
You are all forgetting that these workers gave the Maltese economy Millions of liri in profits throughout the years. Drydock workers, thank the Maltese taxpayers for keeping you there doing losses. You are so luckly that you found a PN Government to bear you out of a natural death situation. And all the Maltese public should thank the Gov that he was capable to get us rid of these blood suckers ones and for all. Workers roll up your sleeves cause now it will be work from now on and not making losses.
Byron Camilleri
Sep 6th 2008, 01:21
Dear John Gatt,
GWU showed us all that it is still very powerful despite the critiizism of the blue eyed boys bloggers who don't give a damn about the workers and their families.
At first the government was saying that their decision is the last and no one could make them change it... but now correctly, they offered an improved retirement scheme to the workers.
It is neither the Government or GWU who won... but the workers who are getting an improved retiring scheme.
Byron Camilleri
Sep 6th 2008, 01:13
Dear Liam Kelly,
For a union to help you, you must be a paid member. GWU helped the dockyard workers because the majority of them are paid members.
From your words you don't seem that you are a paid member, but I might be wrong.
If you think that a worker's union is outdated - this is just an example of why workers should be members of a union, any union which they think it can safeguard their rights and get the best for them, being GWU / UHM / MUT or anyother...
From the workers point of view - if they were'nt members they would not get this better retirement scheme package.
Again, well done GWU.
Ronnie Gauci
Sep 6th 2008, 00:23
The Government is commiting a huge mistake in trying to find a private company to buy the Malta Shipyards, that area should be used for tourism purposes ONLY and the shipyard industry closed down or at least moved to another area, its place is not in our magnificient Grand Harbour for sure. The first thing one sees upon looking from the Upper Barracca or the Valletta WF are rusty ships, fumes and huge cranes. Not to mention the thousands of jobs and foreign investments this would bring to Malta plus a better environment for that area. This project could also be linked with Smart City and so transform the Harbour/South area in Heaven on Earth.
James Sultana
Sep 5th 2008, 23:22
"Mr Fenech had explained that the workforce needed to be reduced immediately so that the dockyard could be more attractive to potential investors."
INCREDIBLE !!!! But does he think that all the people are so blindfolded to beleive everything he says ??
On one site he is quoted as saying that workeforce must leave IMMEDIATELY .... on another site he is quoted as CRYING THAT THE SUPERYACHT FACILITY IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE 40% OF THE WORKFORCE CHOSE EARLY RETIREMENT !!!!!! He is so worried that he is even considering GIVING INCENTIVES TO THOSE WHO WANT TO RETIRE SO THAT THEY KEEP ON WORKING EVEN AFTER THE YEAR-END SO THAT THE COMMITMENTS TAKEN BY THE FACILITY CAN BE MET !!!
No wonder we never heard who these consultants that suggested the 700-workers number were !!! First you tell people to leave, then people leave...and then you ask them to stay because you can`t work without them !!!! ARA VERA MIN JGHAFFEG L-IKTAR !!!
Of course the apologists and spin-doctors will now find a way to justify how the same workers who were yesterday branded as "lazy-cheats" are today called "the backbone"!
George casha
Sep 5th 2008, 23:04
Yet another case of the Government being weak with the strong and strong with the weak. By the way, has the Honorable Minister taken into account the damage caused by the Dockyard Workers in the 80's when they went on a sanctioned rampage by the then ' Workers ' Government? Fat chance Bud!!! And what about all those ' lost ' millions of Liri we all paid from our pockets through Income Tax? Is there going to be compensation for us too? No wonder this God forsaken Island will never prosper.
Michael A. Vella
Sep 5th 2008, 23:04
The deal is in place. A constantly bleeding wound is now stemmed. All parties are happy, government, opposition, GWU, drydocks employees - especially tax-payers, even though still saddled with millions of Euro in recurrent interest on accumulated Drydocks losses that make up some 35% of national debt, but which fact is never ventilated.
So, you lot in the Comment section, stop bickering and flogging dead horses. Let this long and sorry chapter, this two-generation long saga of block-headedness, inefficiency, political irresponsibilty, and wasteful dispersal of funds, be finally closed. Get on with your lives. Find something useful with which to occupy your time.
The nation is well rid of the drydocks problem, and not a moment too soon.
John Gatt
Sep 5th 2008, 22:37
@Silvan
Not sure if you're referring to me re: complaining, which I'm not. Agree with you - some people will always complain; had Government not given anything, they would have said "bad Government..no respect for workers" . But cause it improved the schemes, they say - waste of money. so these people .....will never learn.
I do agree to a certain degree with what you say. But:
1. As I said transfer of business always implied transfer of employees. Government never said (never heard it reported to be fair) that it wanted to avoid it. But it did say that if privatisation fails it would have declared the shipyards bankrupt and start again...
2. Govt is obliged by TOB to transfer workers...so that's why I meant no agreeement there. The agreement ist hat Govt will work to get companies to accept the workers as long as possible..no guarentee how long...
3. Commission will only help the workers, again it's not a job-for life guarantee.
the GWU would have had the right to claim victory only if Government gave Indefinte jobs with IPSL (the govt company which took former dockyard workers) indefinitely.
Silvan Cutajar
Sep 5th 2008, 21:50
@ John Gatt. From other media sources it is clear that Government will require a guarantee by new shipyards to secure jobs and that any surplus would be managed by a joint commission ensuring every shipyards worker has a job. I think this is a job guarantee. And the Union and the Government seem to have found a good solution. Keep in mind Gov originally wasnt even promising to apply the transfer of business should it even require to liquidate and open a new company (evading transfer of businnes). Nevertheless some people keep complaining.
Albert Spiteri
Sep 5th 2008, 21:43
Good work GWU. Seems like a show of force works, just as much, if not more, than in the 60's.
d.attard
Sep 5th 2008, 21:34
@ John Gatt
Quote: But should the employer opt to take on fewer workers than are still on the shipyard books, a government-union commission would be formed to assess their skills and train them as required for the productive sector.Unquote
Knowing the conditions under which training will be carried out will determine if the Union negotiated 'a job for life' or not.
It was obvious from day one that the agreement reached was the obvious way.
It makes no sense giving 'early retirement' packages irrespective of skills retained/lost and understanding of business plan of the new operators.
What will a new owner do if the remaining 700 would be general hands?
John Gatt
Sep 5th 2008, 21:17
@Silvan:
No, sorry.
What is reported is that all workers that do not take the scheme, will be taken by the new company.
But that was already there before(check older stories). Actually, it's not even a matter of an agreement. The EU law on transfer of undertakings stipulates that a new company is obliged to take the previous employees. No matter what Govt or GWU say!
What GWU was saying - which went further - was that Government gives a 'job for life' guarantee - by employing them with Government. This was not given by Government.
Yes the law obliges the new owners to take on board the remaining employees, but if after a number of years it deems they are a surplus to requirements the company is free to dismiss them. (I'm not saying this is good but it's the way it is)
so by just saying - ok they will go with the new company - it's just confirming what existed before - GWU wanted a JOB GUARANTEE (employment with Govt) which was refused.
Pauline Barbara
Sep 5th 2008, 21:15
@ Reuben Ellul - PN having discussions before reaching a decision is not a given unlike sunrise in the mornings - very poor analogy!!!!
Joseph Muscat said the best thing to do is to have the appropriate discussions to get the best deal for everyone, no one is saying PN decided to discuss matters with the Union because Joseph Muscat said so; the truth of the matter is PN realised Tonio Fenech saying Unions are only their to be informed not consulted was a massive politcal gaffe, hence the discussions.
Lack of discussion is what one expects from an autocratic gov., and avoiding consultation is the norm rather then the exception with this government - hence we have an autocratic government masquerading behind a mask of democracy.
I will only be persuaded otherwise when this government chooses out of its own accord to consult before enforcing issues.
Silvan Cutajar
Sep 5th 2008, 20:56
@ John Gatt. You are very wrong that no job guarantee was given. It was given for all those not taking a scheme. At least this is what was reported!
J Micallef
Sep 5th 2008, 20:05
EUR 9 million that could have been spent on education, health and productive sectors. What a waste!!! Looks like money is no problem mentality still prevails, as long as industrial peace is bought.
In my books this is pure cowardness and shoveling dust under the carpet. The government thinks that they bought industrial peace, but for how long, a couple of months perhaps. The more they tolerate and reward laziness, low productivity the harder it will become to solve the issue.
I envy the Brits. They had Thatcher to tackle the untouchables that nobody dared to touch before her time. The UK economy has benefitted from her reforms for 20 whole years.
Felix Axiak
Sep 5th 2008, 19:59
So ironic to mention Joseph Muscat.
All he did was to attend a meeting where certain people spoke so arrogantly.
By being there he was supporting MILITANCY not DISCUSSION.
carmen caruana
Sep 5th 2008, 19:49
After destroying the malta shipyards this was the minimum the government could give to the workers......
Joseph Agius
Sep 5th 2008, 19:40
Joseph says you should eat healthy to live longer. So if you live long it is thanks to Joseph. If you die soon it is because of Lawrence for the simple reason he is not Joseph! (Elf philosophy 2008)
John Gatt
Sep 5th 2008, 19:40
@N Balzan: X'fhimt mela?
nicholas balzan
Sep 5th 2008, 19:36
imnalla kont int sur gatt ghax jien mhux hekk fhimt
Jeremy J Camilleri
Sep 5th 2008, 19:35
well A Dalli..You should use that mirror, especially when you call others biased.
As for your gathering in a group to read my contributions...well, thst so nice of you...
ALthough, I must be humble and admit that if your idea of fun is reading my contributions...well..you must have a very poor social life......
John Gatt
Sep 5th 2008, 19:22
although to be frank one must congratulate all - i think this is a massive victory for Government
the two Main arguments the GWU fought for:
a) jobs guarantee - was not given
b) schemes to be given AFTER privatisation - not to happen
OK the GWU got 9 million EURO more (assuming all workers leave, which wont happen) but lost the two fundamental aspects of the battle
joanna farrugia
Sep 5th 2008, 19:16
Sur Franco Farrugia mela dawn il haddiema mhux taxxa u bolla halsu bhalek.ahjar issaqsi u tara l verita kollha. il haddiema rajt zejda ghidli int dawn fejn ha jahdmu issa forsi xogholok garanit mhux bhal taghhom mdendel
John Gatt
Sep 5th 2008, 19:16
I disagree that this is more money from the taxpayer.
If LESS workers take the scheme - The value of the shipyards will decrease - and therefore the income by Govt from the selling of the yards will decrease.
Thus, the money will be lost anyway.
Considering the millions of liri/euro that have been spent by successive Governments - I dont think this is too much.
Jonathan Mifsud
Sep 5th 2008, 19:01
Though this agreement is a definite improvement on the one that was previously offered i doubt that it really reflects the workers opinions. The schemes were awarded according to the ages and the years of service in the Drydocks was completely omitted and those who spent over 30 years working there and have not qualified for early retirement, whilst other with much less years of service are, feel gutted. Especially when members of the union were telling them that their issues had been resolved whilst they were actually looking at their own interests.
I would sincerely like to have more transparent discussions whenever these deals are taking place. As the workforce is left in the dark and its "real" opinion is lost.
Franco Farrugia
Sep 5th 2008, 18:54
Ahleb, Guz ... ghax hemm it-taxxi taghna!!!!!!!
And then, for a certain age bracket, there isn't enough money for our pensions! And yet, we find millions and millions for dockyard workers!!!!
PROSIT POPLU MALTI, LI JKOLLOK TOHROG 9 MILJUNI OHRA MA' DAWK IL-MILJUNI LI ILEK TOHROG BIEX IZZOMM IT-TARZNA!
Mario Bonnici
Sep 5th 2008, 18:46
Well done to everyone.
The government, the union and the MLP acted responsibly in this sensible and difficult issue.
Adrian Bonanno
Sep 5th 2008, 18:46
@ Sean Meli
Can you confirm the GWU reached an agreement for every one and that approx 70employees with a definite contract were integrated with this agreement? Or because they are only 70 they were omitted and they will be redundant without any compensation?
A.Dalli
Sep 5th 2008, 18:41
No mirrors here Jerry, just your wild red tinted contributions. We actually gather together in a group here to read through your write ups, you know its always nice to share a good goofy laugh.
Jean Paul Galea
Sep 5th 2008, 18:21
Another big loss for the taxpayer who has been stolen with the mismanagement of the drydocks and the lack of work the employees produce. It is totally unfair that such employees after not working for so many years and stealing and making business out of the drydocks metal are also compensated for doing so. It is totally unacceptable considering that any other employee hard working who loses his job is not compensated and these employees are. What is special about them is just the fact that the government isn't able to hold strong and face the issues. We need a government that works for a common good and not for those who can scare him with going to castille
A.Gauci Cunningham
Sep 5th 2008, 18:19
It's good to see that finally commonsense has prevailed on all fronts and that the threats and whatnot were shortlived, it's good to see that the workers (or those who'd like to do so) can feel free to take up any of the retirement schemes.............now I believe everyone ( GWU, Govt and workers) would pull the same rope to make out of MDD a sucess and to create a profitable, foward looking, politics-free company which makes a name for itself and for Malta.........a true case of "flimkien kollox Possibli" . Joe Farriuga deserves ample praise it's not everyday that you find someone who volontarily works to make our country better, unfortunately we're a bit short of Joe Farriugas here!!
Gerard Mangion
Sep 5th 2008, 18:10
@ manuwel micallef
It's the Goverment ana the Mediator that done a great job !!!
Joseph had nothing to do with the agreement on the shipyard's and it's worker's at All !!!
he went to the meeting the GWU had for the Workers! Qed tara KiF, FLIMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBBLI :)
Bravo Tonio.
Reuben Ellul
Sep 5th 2008, 18:10
@ P.Barbara:
So, if Joseph says that the Sun is to rise again tomorrow, it is only thanks to him that we shall have a sunrise?
@ ABC:
Sshh, it's the elven (respecting English grammar, sorry) version of an ontological argument...Joseph must have had something to do with it, because they believe he's perfect in all ways, including solving said problems. It works, in a twisted kind of way...
Adrian bonanno
Sep 5th 2008, 18:08
What about those employees that have a definite contract? Are they omitted from this agreement?
john grech
Sep 5th 2008, 18:05
is this blogger manuel micallef the same ex guy of the GWU?
Sean Meli
Sep 5th 2008, 17:58
Yes I totally agree with Byron that when workers unites the best agreement can be acquired. the GWU during the whole "consultation" that government done was firm on it's ideas and the workers have been given a better deal that regards job security through training and grant for those who wants to leave the docks.
Keep it up GWU secretaries and administration!!
sean meli
Jeremy J Camilleri
Sep 5th 2008, 17:55
Well A dalli, I sugget you put that mirror away, just so you'll be sure what you're laughing at....
Well Well....The GWU did not gamble the worker's livelihood after all, but actually managed to get a better deal that that put on the table.....
So Unions are still relevant I guess....Prosit...
The hounds baying vindictivaley for the worker's blood can now return back to their kennels....
Pauline Barbara
Sep 5th 2008, 17:52
@ Joseph Agius - Joseph Muscat was present at that 'disgusting meeting' as were reps. of AD and other groups but there is a difference between being present and participating in something.
E.g. you may be present at a football stadium to support your team, but if certain players of your favourite team misbehave; just because you were present in the stadium does not mean you participated in your teams' misbehaviour. You are insinuating that Joseph Muscat was aware of what was going to be said by GWU, which is not the case.
However Joseph Muscat and MLP were not involved in these discussions but Joseph Muscat did say that discussions should take place and that if PN had promised workers they would not lose their job then said promise should be kept. What I can't understand is why discussions didn't take place to begin with before the scehmes were set up by PN, its total arrogance that Tonio Fenech initially says the gov.'s only obligation to the GWU was to inform them of the decisions taken and not to consult with them, which is probably what provoked GWU to begin with only to end up holding discussions anyway.
vincent magro
Sep 5th 2008, 17:49
prosit lil kulhadd:-GWU,Tonio Fenech u Joe Farrugia.li kieku kulhadd baqa jzomm il- puzizzjoni tieghu,ma wasalna mkien. nemmen li illum fejjaqna ferita li nfethet ghexieren ta snin ilu u minkejja l-isforzi li saru biex titranga s-sitwazzjoni,kienet baqghet ferita miftuha.
ghax anke sistema hazina, meta jkun ilha ghexieren ta snin,issir precedent u tinholoq mentalita zbaljata li bl'ghaqal ta kulhadd biss tista tkisser.nixtieq nawgura b'mod specjali lil haddiema tat-tarzna li llum se jorqdu mohhom mistrieh aktar m'ilbierah
Charles Micallef
Sep 5th 2008, 17:49
Another 9million eh? Dish it out why not, lets hope that this is the final 'squeeze' from the taxpayers for the drydocks employees! ! ! ! ! !
Nicky Attard
Sep 5th 2008, 17:48
@Manuel Micallef... thank Joseph for the sunshine, but blame the thunderstorm on Lawrence. No wonder some people will remain on the opposition benches.
Well done to both parties (Govt. & GWU) on the compromise, even though it will cost us an extra €9 mln...;p
A. Attard
Sep 5th 2008, 17:44
Big well done to the GWU and to JOSEPH MUSCAT since he was the one who called for the government to sit down and talk to the GWU without any arrogance.
BIG WELL DONE JOSEPH YOU ARE THE MAN
Liam Kelly
Sep 5th 2008, 17:44
Interesting comment Byron Camilleri...
I stopped working because the wages and conditions were so poor...did any union help me?
I required very expensive training to take a Private Pilots licence....did the union force the government to help me?
Many of my friends have been out of work since their employers shut down....did the union negotiate early retirement packages for them?
The whole point of a union is to provide a collective voice for ALL the workers, not just the select few who happen to be in a better position to use as a political football against the Nationalists Party.
The whole concept of Workers Unions is outdated.
A.Dalli
Sep 5th 2008, 17:41
I agree with Joseph Agius. Che centra Joey ? All we need is Jerry J's comments now so we die of laughter. ehhehe
martin saliba
Sep 5th 2008, 17:39
HEY JOSEPH AGIUS, Don't you know that the leader of the opposition said the day after the meeting that he dose not agree with the tone used during the same meeting?
I am in no way defending JM but i can't stand half truths which in actual fact are lies.
Andrew Borg Cardona
Sep 5th 2008, 17:38
Manuel Micallef - you seem to have been reading too quickly. The "Joseph" involved was Joe Farrugia, not Joseph Muscat. Put your glasses back on, my friend, the ones without the rose-tint.
Mark Piscopo
Sep 5th 2008, 17:38
Well done to all those who participated in the talks the government, the GWU and also Joseph Muscat who supported the workers
Joseph Agius
Sep 5th 2008, 17:30
Hey Manuel...che centra Joseph????....maturity was shown by the government, union and mediator....joseph was not involved!..he just participated in that disgusting meeting!
Byron Camilleri
Sep 5th 2008, 17:29
That's what a worker's union is there for... and GWU managed to get the possible best for the workers. Well done GWU!
M. Galea
Sep 5th 2008, 17:23
I am glad that finally a deal was met however the government is not considering one thing with this process. What will be going on with the current Fjell Project? The government's interest is solely to sell the yard not knowing that most of the skilled workforce will be looking for employment before the process is over. Considering that a project is half way through, how does the government envisage the work completion? Brining in a foreign workforce and increasing the expense on this yard and it's privatization?
Manuel Micallef
Sep 5th 2008, 17:17
A lot of maturity was shown here by the GWU and MLP.
Well done Joseph!!! he is showing already credibility that he can govern fairly!
Joseph Agius
Sep 5th 2008, 17:13
well done mediator MEA Director General Joe Farrugia....fine job!
Peter Darmanin
Sep 5th 2008, 17:11
Prosit tassew. Sewwa jghidu: "Fliemkien kollosx possibbli." Grazzi lil-medjatur. Xewqat sbieh lit-Tarzna ta' Malta u lill-haddiema taghha.
Charles Micallef
Sep 5th 2008, 17:00
Phew !
No walkabouts to Castille!
They just found out that with talking around a table, common sense always previals!
j farrugia
Sep 5th 2008, 16:51
thank God and the mediator.