About three weeks ago, the Malta Employers Association reacted very negatively to the coming into force of LN44 of 2012, which deals with exploitation of workers. Its main contention was that this legislation was unwarranted because only a small fraction of employers are guilty of abuse.

Which part of LN44 is (MEA) specifically against?- Felix Galea, Fgura

Less than a week later, the MEA felt the need to continue its offensive in a Talking Point (February 21). While it reiterated that it “was against any form of abuse and illegal activity”, it went on that it “will never support any form of relationship between an employer and an employee which is deemed illegal under Maltese law”. It also “agrees and accepts the fact that that any form of abuse should be controlled and eliminated”. Yet, at the same time it insists that “the legislation is wrong and that the action taken to address the issue created by a minority is equivalent to an army general deciding to carpet bomb a city just to capture a single individual”.

As can be seen from the above, this jumbled thinking is at best confusing. Is it or isn’t it against abuse? If it is against abuse why is it against legislation intended to protect a worker from abuse? Exactly which part of this legislation does it deem “draconian”?

All that the legislation does is mention eight characteristics typical of an employment relationship and states that if at least five are present then a “whole-time” worker is considered as an employee on an indefinite contract of employment with all the conditions of employment and remuneration as that enjoyed by a comparable employee. Why is the MEA against that? Which part of LN44 is it specifically against?

The fact that MEA then ends its article by challenging the unions to define precarious work just because there is no one standard definition is at best pathetic. Exploitation is exploitation by whatever name it’s called.