"A breakthrough for the country" - that is how Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami described the collective agreement for shipyard workers reached between the government and the General Workers' Union. On his part, Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who was directly involved in the negotiations, called it "exceptional".
Considering how difficult it must have been for the government to push through its plans for the reform of the shipyards, one can well understand such euphoric descriptions. But, as they well say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In other words, the agreement will be considered exceptional and a breakthrough only if, and when, it delivers the goods.
Yet, the agreement comes not a moment too soon. In one way or another, Malta Drydocks has been occupying the minds of the people for quite a long time now. No reform plan has as yet worked, at least not on a long-term basis. This is not the same thing as saying that no plan can actually work. It can, but only if a really serious effort is made to commercialise the enterprise in the very true sense of the word and if it manages to compete for work in a market that is growing more, not less, competitive.
Does the collective agreement just signed between the government and the union pave the way to take the 'yards out of the deep rut in which they have been operating for so many years? The people generally hope it would. They have a particular reason, and interest, to hope so. They have pumped into the shipyards no fewer than Lm300 million in subsidies over the years. These are now to be written off so that, in the words of the minister himself, the new shipyards' operation would be "free of the burden of existing debts".
The aim, at least as seen through the government's eyes, is to bring about a major improvement in productivity and efficiency. In truth, this has been the aim of every plan launched so far but outdated work practices weakened if not altogether defeated such aims and the yards continued to wallow in inefficiency... and accumulated debt.
As the details of the agreement begin to sink in, there will no doubt be greater dissection of its provisions. At one time during the negotiations with the unions, Dr Gonzi had gone on record saying that the only rise contemplated was a performance-related one. Quite rightly, he had asked: How can a wage rise be justified? Well, it now transpires, for instance, that the government has agreed that once the reforms are implemented, on January 31, 2004 it would grant a wage rise of Lm1 weekly, effective from January 1, 2004, and a further increase of 50c per week on July 31, effective July 1, 2004.
The government may well argue that the agreement will lead to a substantial reduction in overtime but does the situation warrant a rise? Or is the planned rise meant as compensation for the introduction of reforms?
Very valid questions were put in parliament by opposition members, such as, for instance, one asking what plans existed, if any, to strengthen the 'yards' marketing efforts.
Cynics may strongly doubt the potential for financial viability of the shipyards but the management and the workforce may well prove them wrong if they commit themselves to translate the agreement into a real breakthrough, although much also depends on how successful the 'yards are in winning new work.