Motivating the future

Industrial tension is part of the wage-work bargaining process, but we could do with the least industrial unrest possible. The academic year opened up with one day of just that - professors and other lecturers stayed away from the University on Wednesday, over disagreement on new salary scales.

Normal process, yes; but the context could not be stranger or messier. The last collective agreement for the sector expired over five years ago. Nevertheless there we were, the academic year about to start and no sight of common ground between the negotiating sides. The least one would expect is that agreements are negotiated in due time. That did not happen this time round for various reasons. The unions had their own difficulties, brought about by making the Upper Secondary part of the University. Once that was resolved, if that is the word, negotiations opened some 18 months ago.

It seems there was no painful inching towards a solution. As the opening of the academic year approached, the unions involved piled on some pressure by warning that there could be industrial action. The government side piled up pressure of its own. Unilaterally, it published what were purported to be the outstanding claims of the unions. That drew the angry reaction that the government had acted arbitrarily, in a manner deliberately intended to mislead the public. It had not given the unions' latest negotiating position. Nor, in fact, should it have done so.

The sides involved in any negotiation require one basic ingredient which has to be and remain present even at stages of disagreement - mutual trust. Lose that and a normal negotiating game easily turns into a roughhouse. The action taken by the Ministry of Finance came pretty close to blowing away much of any that may have existed. The ministry also toughened up its stance, saying that its counter proposal would be withdrawn if the unions did not come up with fresh proposals by a given date.

It was not uncommon in the old days for private employers to threaten unions in that manner. It does not quite behove a democratic government to adopt such a grim style. The unions did not allow it to work. They did submit fresh proposals and the stand-off was thereby postponed. In the process, the unions demonstrated little slips of their own. The Malta Union of Teachers grumbled that the government, in releasing details of the original claim and of the government's counter offer, had not said that the stated amounts were subject to a 35 per cent tax rate.

In the first instance, the 35 per cent figure is not correct - that is the existing top marginal tax rate. Secondly, the argument has never been used before and should not be used. Wage and salary negotiations take place on the basis of gross pay, before deducting from it the social security contribution and the income tax to be deducted. Trying to use disposable income - income net of tax - as the basis of negotiations is not on. That track leads to a dead end.

What is worth following is the argument of the value of the educational sector, and the University in particular, to Malta's civil society and economy. Without a sound and well motivated educational sector, whose pay and conditions of work keep up with the times, no government can talk of political, social and economic visions and steady growth.

Educated and trained resources do not just happen. They have to be, ugly as the word is, produced. There has to be a natural inclination by students to put their nose to the grindstone, and there has to be an efficient and effective teaching and training profession. Within the profession there has to be some reasonable differentials, as with every other sector of the economy. But overall, the profession, like the broad health profession, has to be reasonably compensated.

The key operational words in the above statement of the obvious are "keep(ing) up with the times" and "reasonably". Both factors have to placed in the local and foreign sectors. No segment of the working population can expect compensation that outstrips that given to broadly comparative professions. Nor can any segment compare to similar segments abroad without placing the comparison within a workable framework.

If negotiations are to be resumed with any hope of coming to a mutually acceptable compromise, these parameters have to frame the positions of the two sides. The unions have offered comparison to EU levels. That is too broad a reference. One has to benchmark on like with like, to look at individual indicators, like Gross Domestic Product per head of the population.

On its part, the government cannot say, as it has effectively done, only so much is available for you, share that out. Granted, any government has to keep in mind the total outlay of expenditure that it can finance out of recurrent revenue (local taxation). But it has to do so while squaring that need with the fact that key employees have to be adequately compensated within the context of the times.

Our University faces the disadvantage that it depends totally on the government for its financial resources. Within that limitation it might make more sense to follow the old model of allocating a fair negotiated amount out of the government's Budget to the University, for it to deploy as it thinks best - without 'it' continuing to mean in the main appointees made by the government of the day.

It would also make sense to explore ways and means whereby the University can attempt to raise some income for itself. Those of us lucky enough to have studied abroad are continually approached to help out their old college or university with some contribution, besides the fact that such universities try to raise independent income, not least through their research and development.

The comparison is stretched, I admit; but it is not irrelevant. Moving forward, the importance of having a professional cadre of educationalists who are motivated enough to remain here to give their services with total commitment is the best investment our governments can make in the country's future.