I am glad The Times has recognised the fact that the GWU will continue to take a family-oriented approach, which is the most adequate one for our society (editorial, Time For GWU To Rebrand Its Tactics, October 9).

The Times thinks that the GWU acts "too aggressive[ly]" when coming to deal with industrial disputes and national issues. "Too aggressive" is too cumbersome an adjective and is not at all fair. The GWU is actively working for the benefit of the wage-earners, consumers and families, and unfortunately hostility is part of its day-to-day encounters in several fora. More so when it is being successful in forging alliances with other unions in the Forum.

From the very beginning of this legislature the government did not maintain its electoral promises to the Maltese people. Take for example the water and electricity bills that families are receiving. And what about the promises made to the shipyard workers and their families? With Lawrence Gonzi's Administration continuously implementing neo-liberalist policies, and shifting its scapegoatist discourse from shipyards' workers to single mothers, the GWU cannot seek other directions. The GWU is there to propose new socio-economic models, which surely should be diametrically opposed to neo-liberal ones.

The editorial went on to describe the GWU as a "political trade union" that has worked against the workers' interests. This assertion grossly misleads readers especially as it conveniently did not mention that at that time, thanks to the work of the GWU, a number of entities were established which provided employment to thousands of Maltese workers and a good standard of living to their families. That was a time when most of the present established foreign companies came to Malta to invest.

The GWU has always been and will continue to be part of the International Trade Union Movement, of which the majority is made up of leftist unions.

What's so different in Malta that in other democratic countries goes without saying? It had to be the international trade union solidarity to transform the impossible to the achievable as when the Malta Freeport issued a severe garnishee order against the GWU, or in the rejection of the port directive aimed at liberalising European ports. Never before has an EU directive been rejected as a result of workers' actions, including manifestations of protest and strikes, organised by national and international trade unions.

I suggest The Times dedicates an editorial to those unions that seem to be in a deep sleep at the moment though it goes well with the newspaper's suggested tune of how to be more realistic in the attitude and dealings with the present neo-liberal government.

Saying one thing and doing another was the way the conservative trade unions dealt with the majority of other independent trade unions when facing the exaggerated rise in water and electricity tariffs.

In such a context, the GWU will surely continue to be perceived to be louder than it should be. In fact it is only trying to compensate for the void that other trade unions are leaving by being inactive!