Unions question industrial democracy

Joe Morana

Apr 16th 2009, 10:41

I reiterate that Trade unions know very well that according to long established industrial relations practices and local collective agreements, Trade Union sole recognition is determined when a trade union proves that it has achieved or surpassed the 50%+1 threshold of union membership (according to the union's statute) of the categoires of workers to be represented at the partilcular place of work and not simply by ballot preferences.

Trade unions also know very well that unlike political democracy, Indusrial Democracy comes at a very direct cost to workers , that of paid trade union membership. This is a democractic right that trade unions' members cherish.
It would be a pity if unions give away this hard fought for right of the paying union members for an secret ballot system, which ironically, would give the opportunity to non union members to determine which union would represent them. How is that for industrial democracy?
The I firmly beleive that if this is allowed to happen, it would jeopoardise the whole local industrial relations scenario and the trade union movement in particular.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Apr 16th 2009, 07:39

Was the PN using the people to fight its battle during 1981-1987 when it had the majority of votes and the Constitution recognised the MLP?

A trade union can’t have an industrial dispute with another trade union. The dispute is with the Freeport Management for affording recognition when that same item is being disputed.

Can any democracy protégée tell us what is undemocratic about a secret ballot supervised by the two unions to determine where the majority lies? Isn’t that what the GWU is asking for?

Charles J. Buttigieg

Apr 16th 2009, 07:17

Without comments.

The Health Department said this evening that people should call ambulances only when absolutely possible.

The appeal was made after the UHM announced industrial action by the ambulance drivers.

Michael Spiteri

Apr 15th 2009, 20:26

Brian Spiteri
In 1997 the UHM chained the gates of the Freeport without it having a dispute with the company. The action was taken because as soon as the Labour was in office the UHM wanted a nation wage raise of some LM10 a week. Its only strength was in the Freeport workers so it saw it fit to blockade it as an obstacle to the then government. And you are upset because the Government took the UHM to court?

GiovDeMartino@the MUT

Apr 15th 2009, 18:27

Are YOU of all people questioning industrial democracy? YOU? Proprju INTOM?

J Busuttil

Apr 15th 2009, 18:16

It is true what was mentioned by other bloggers that in 1997 the UHM was brought before the courts by Malta Freeport claiming damages of LM 1,000,000 double the garnishee against the GWU. At that time the Freeport was wholly owned by the Govt (at that time PL Govt)and at that time the GWU,MUMN et al stayed mumned. And now the PL is voicing it's pleas for the GWU. How Hypocrite of the PL. And in this particular case the dispute is between two unions and it is a shame for the so called Ghaqda Unions to take sides. Today's unions of l-Ghaqda should have questioned industrial democracy at that time whwn UHM was involved otherwise today they cannot be takes seriously. Though I am not happy this is a lesson for the GWU to consider it's political ties with the PL.

Brian Spiteri

Apr 15th 2009, 18:01

@ A Gauci Cunningham

My dear friend,

If the issue disputed was of a grave matter, I would have surely supported them. However in this case, the issue is between one Union and another. Why should I side one union and not the other?

I assure you that I am from a left leaning ideology, and I am very worried about our current state of trade unionism. I cannot understand why there are two blocks against each other... Imma nsomma, just to reiterate what I already explained, this is not a case where a Union is fighting for the interests of the worker, but in its own interest to gain majority and increase its revenue. the issue in 1997 was very very different.

And that is why I am very concerned for the fact that while in 1997, NO ONE backed the UHM, now, Unions are fighting between each other. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why didn't the same GWU support the UHM during that time, when the issue was for a national matter? Why did the GWU use its own newspaper to ridicule the UHM during that time?

Thanks my friend

joe felice pace

Apr 15th 2009, 17:55

Is it not high time that legal provision is made for the regular, annual, checking of paid union membership! Were that to be done, not only the question of recognition will be solved BUT we will also have many, really many, surprises.

A.Gauci cunningham

Apr 15th 2009, 17:22

@Brian Spiteri---your point enforces my thoughts about this saga i.e. what was bad then is still bad now and therefore this action by the Malta Freeport ,if it had to be emulated by all other private companies/bosses would spell the end of Trade unionism and the beginning of a Thatcherite era..........and the latter is definitely not the country we expect somebody to leave behind when he leaves the poltical scene, after all civil society was used (and abused) over and again when this somebody needed them in 2004!! So lets be careful how to thread and give the same support we gave UHM in 1997 if we want to be consistent with our beliefs!!

Joe Vella (Mellieha.)

Apr 15th 2009, 16:26

@ C. Cachia

I am afraid that it is you that don't know what is happening in all of this. The dispute is not between the GWU and the Freeport, but between the GWU and the MDU, period.

The verification was not carried out by the Freeport, but by the appropriate authorities which followed previous practice in similar circumstances.. The poll you speak off was carried out unilaterally by the GWU without the consent of no one.

The freeport in all this is a victim.

Paul Barrett

Apr 15th 2009, 16:23

This sort of argument with Union v Union, in public with a bewildered innocent third party (the employer) likely to suffer or suffering damage is damaging to the whole trade union movement.
The two unions need to get together with whoever controls these things and prove their paid up membership. If either side cannot prove their paid up membership, they should withdraw from the conflict, not give instructions to their assumed members which will damage the employer who is not actively involved in the disagreement.
Common sense and maturity - lack of, springs to mind.

P.Cassar

Apr 15th 2009, 16:22

Before commenting, some bloggers had better check the facts before, otherwise a lot of nonsense is presented. Facts are: we have a law which does not specify how a union becomes recognosed as representing the majority of workers. The MDU presented its membership forms (workers may however have double registration), the GWU held a secret ballot and the Director went for private investigation. All are saying their mehod is correct and the others are wrong. They all know that the three methods had been used before. For me and many others the simple way out is to sit down together and find an acceptable way of dealing with the problem. I think a secret ballot asking the workers which union they wish to represent them would solve the problem easily.

Anthony Gatt

Apr 15th 2009, 16:15

Where was MUMN, GWU and the other Ghaqda Unions Maltin Unions, when UHM was taken to court and asked to pay millions of liri in damage for daring to strike during the (in)famous Labour administration? No Unions would have been able to strike anymore if this court case was won by the MLP.... not even the GWU would have been able to strike (even under the PN)

Where was the GWU at the time? Preparing a report to study what actions it would have been able to take as soon as MLP loose the election? Or was it already calculating how many workers would have joined it once the UHM would have been forced to close down and loose all its assets??

I wonder why no Anglu farrugia, no big personality did speak at the time.... Anzi, I remember quite well the GWU newspaper publishing on its front page the court case aiming to shame the UHM....

During that time the UHM was ALONE. Not even foreign Unions cared to speak or to threaten the Government. of the time against this shameful court case.

Shameful Ghaqda Union Maltin.

Brian Spiteri

Apr 15th 2009, 15:56

I wonder why NO ONE except the CMTU protested way back in 1997 when the Lbour Government through the Freeport took the UHM to court. If the Labour government won that case, the UHM would have closed down, apart from the fact that Unions would have lost their ability to take industrial actions on national issues!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is it that during the period, the Labour Party took a Union to court, and NO ONE protested?

Forsi ghax jekk kellha taghlaq il-UHM ma jimpurtax??

Two weight two measures!!!!

Joe Morana

Apr 15th 2009, 15:43

Trade unions know very well that according to long established industrial relations practices and local collective agreements, Trade Union sole recognition is determined when a trade union proves that it has achieved or surpassed the 50%+1 threshold of union membership (according to the union's statute) of the categoires of workers to be represented at the partilcular place of work and not simply by ballot preferences. Trade unions also know very well that unlike political democracy, Indusrial Democracy comes at a very direct cost to workers , that of paid trade union membership. It would be a pity if unions give away this hard fought for right of the paying union members for an anonimous/secret ballot system. I beleive that if this is allowed to happen, it would jeopoardise the whole local industrial relations scenario and the trade union movement in particular.

C.Cachia

Apr 15th 2009, 15:42

Sorry to say but some commentators on this blog have no idea what industrial relations is about. There IS a dispute between the GWU and Malta Freeport on the basis of non-recognition following a poll in which GWU obtained the absolute majority of workers.

Inspecting the list of members would solve nothing as some employees are members of more than one union. Interviewing workers one-by-one in an office is nothing but intimidation to say the least. That is why the best option is to hold a free and transparent ballot and we'll take it from there.

J Farrugia

Apr 15th 2009, 15:09

when unions abuse their rights then the buck stops there. And abuse there has been. The Freeport has no quarrel neither with the MDU nor with the GWU. So why involve it unnecessary given the current grave economic situation? Let these two unions fight it out amongst themselves, BUT WITHOUT INVOLVING THE FREEPORT.

Philip Muscat

Apr 15th 2009, 15:05

I thought that the right to strike was a constitutional right. Maybe not in Malta.

John Grima

Apr 15th 2009, 15:01

Why don't the Unions concerned allow the authorities to inspect the list of members, thus allowing the authorities to find out accurately which union has the majority of workers backing it. While a secret ballot seems to be the fairest method to decide this issue in principle, the fact that non union members will be voting makes it not really representative. If people are noty prepared to be members of a union then they should not have the right to chose which Union represents their colleagues.

Jeff Inguanez

Apr 15th 2009, 14:55

It's a shame on the General Workers' Union to use workers against workers in a dispute it has with another union. It's a shame on the GWU to put in peril jobs in industry and the Maltese economy just about a dispute about which union should have recognition at Freeport. Grow up, please, and consider that other countries are discussing layoffs and deep recession not unions' recognition. Cannot the GWU learn to work with other unions?

Anthony Mercieca

Apr 15th 2009, 14:42

Anybody heard of arbitration???????