A partnership is forged
The silver lining in the public utility tariffs controversy is striking in the way employers' associations and trade unions came together, to speak out in one voice about it. This is not the first time that has happened, but there was never such unity...
The silver lining in the public utility tariffs controversy is striking in the way employers' associations and trade unions came together, to speak out in one voice about it. This is not the first time that has happened, but there was never such unity before. Hard times bring about deep changes, in attitudes as well as in tactics.
Quite a few people were surprised at the outturn, possibly the government most of all. There was no real cause to be amazed by the development. The measures the government set out and the way it is going about implementing them were designed to create a rumble of widespread discontent, leading the grumblers to become bedfellows, strange as they may appear in that role at first glance.
The authorities seem to have swung to a measure of mitigation of the burden brought about on high water and electricity users by the proposed abrupt removal of the capping mechanism. But any relative gratitude they gained from such users was bound to be more than offset by the smaller businesses, which were cast in the role of the bearers of the heavy statues in some Good Friday procession.
The reaction of the GRTU was the harshest of all the constituted bodies, and not without good reason. The union's members were handpicked by ministers Fenech and Gatt to carry the can for their very big brothers. When I read about that possibility I thought it was some sort of surrealistic joke. But the ministers who proposed and propelled it were, at least in the early and middle stages, deadly earnest.
One rather thinks that those ministers and their Cabinet peers possess a very odd definition of solidarity. It was also inevitable that most of the members of the association and of the old Federation of Industry would be still more shocked by the government's second stage tactics than they were in the first round.
The unions on the MCSED were not amused, either.
So came about a broad coalition of angry interests which few thought would come into being under a Nationalist government. The coalition may eventually disband on other issues, such as any repeat proposal like that to whittle down the number of public holidays, or to fiddle about with the annual statutory cost-of-living increase. But the example of the past few weeks will linger and probably lead to less disparate and more concerted action in the future by the social partners.
Put simply, a new partnership has come into being, hence the surprise of those who believe that employers' associations and employee unions are as dissimilar as cats and dogs. The modern truth is vastly different. The partnership may seem new, but it is not that at all.
In today's world the old antagonisms between employers' and employee unions have been drastically cut back. In the private sector competitiveness is the other name for survival. An enterprise that is not competitive in foreign markets, or in the domestic market against imports, is destined to flounder - sooner rather than later.
Recognising that, unions have very wisely adopted a different style to that of old in relation to the employers they face across the negotiating table. They hold out for basic workers' rights, no doubt about that. Yet when it comes to remuneration they look much deeper at the issue than in the old days.
They tend to demonstrate knowledge of the company's markets no less penetrating than that of the employer. They use their international membership and connections to determine the level of competitiveness, pay and conditions of work in competing economies.
The unions will declare their anger that some competing countries give their producers an unfair advantage by allowing them to treat their workers little better than modern slaves. They will call for international action to stop such abuses.
Yet when it comes to treating the issue of competitiveness on the negotiating table they understand perfectly well what the employers are saying when they describe the low prices they have to compete against.
It's a whole new world and employers and unions have to operate within it in a togetherness that few would have imagined was possible ten or so years ago.
It is of little wonder that if unions are militant, nowadays they are that in the public sector. The public sector does not operate in a competitive environment. The unions know that and push their claims to the hilt. That is not to say that they make mad claims. But neither do they hold back as much as they do in the private sector.
With the private sector growing, especially as the less unionised services sector expands, unions tailor their policies within it on the cloth of reason and deep understanding. They try to help rather than confront reasonable employers, meaning those who do not try to abuse the unions' appreciation of modern pressures.
This new approach has been very evident and various employers have publicly credited the unions for it. Unification at the MCESD against measures that, as proposed and in the given timeframe, will raise consumer prices and production costs will not end here.
That is the main message for today's and tomorrow's governments.
Quite a few people were surprised at the outturn, possibly the government most of all. There was no real cause to be amazed by the development. The measures the government set out and the way it is going about implementing them were designed to create a rumble of widespread discontent, leading the grumblers to become bedfellows, strange as they may appear in that role at first glance.
The authorities seem to have swung to a measure of mitigation of the burden brought about on high water and electricity users by the proposed abrupt removal of the capping mechanism. But any relative gratitude they gained from such users was bound to be more than offset by the smaller businesses, which were cast in the role of the bearers of the heavy statues in some Good Friday procession.
The reaction of the GRTU was the harshest of all the constituted bodies, and not without good reason. The union's members were handpicked by ministers Fenech and Gatt to carry the can for their very big brothers. When I read about that possibility I thought it was some sort of surrealistic joke. But the ministers who proposed and propelled it were, at least in the early and middle stages, deadly earnest.
One rather thinks that those ministers and their Cabinet peers possess a very odd definition of solidarity. It was also inevitable that most of the members of the association and of the old Federation of Industry would be still more shocked by the government's second stage tactics than they were in the first round.
The unions on the MCSED were not amused, either.
So came about a broad coalition of angry interests which few thought would come into being under a Nationalist government. The coalition may eventually disband on other issues, such as any repeat proposal like that to whittle down the number of public holidays, or to fiddle about with the annual statutory cost-of-living increase. But the example of the past few weeks will linger and probably lead to less disparate and more concerted action in the future by the social partners.
Put simply, a new partnership has come into being, hence the surprise of those who believe that employers' associations and employee unions are as dissimilar as cats and dogs. The modern truth is vastly different. The partnership may seem new, but it is not that at all.
In today's world the old antagonisms between employers' and employee unions have been drastically cut back. In the private sector competitiveness is the other name for survival. An enterprise that is not competitive in foreign markets, or in the domestic market against imports, is destined to flounder - sooner rather than later.
Recognising that, unions have very wisely adopted a different style to that of old in relation to the employers they face across the negotiating table. They hold out for basic workers' rights, no doubt about that. Yet when it comes to remuneration they look much deeper at the issue than in the old days.
They tend to demonstrate knowledge of the company's markets no less penetrating than that of the employer. They use their international membership and connections to determine the level of competitiveness, pay and conditions of work in competing economies.
The unions will declare their anger that some competing countries give their producers an unfair advantage by allowing them to treat their workers little better than modern slaves. They will call for international action to stop such abuses.
Yet when it comes to treating the issue of competitiveness on the negotiating table they understand perfectly well what the employers are saying when they describe the low prices they have to compete against.
It's a whole new world and employers and unions have to operate within it in a togetherness that few would have imagined was possible ten or so years ago.
It is of little wonder that if unions are militant, nowadays they are that in the public sector. The public sector does not operate in a competitive environment. The unions know that and push their claims to the hilt. That is not to say that they make mad claims. But neither do they hold back as much as they do in the private sector.
With the private sector growing, especially as the less unionised services sector expands, unions tailor their policies within it on the cloth of reason and deep understanding. They try to help rather than confront reasonable employers, meaning those who do not try to abuse the unions' appreciation of modern pressures.
This new approach has been very evident and various employers have publicly credited the unions for it. Unification at the MCESD against measures that, as proposed and in the given timeframe, will raise consumer prices and production costs will not end here.
That is the main message for today's and tomorrow's governments.