In parliament, the debate on the new Industrial Relations Act has been going on for quite some time, incorporating various elements that strengthen the position of employees with regard to a number of issues that affect them directly. This new piece of legislation has been in the making for a number of years now and yet never saw the light of day because the social partners failed to find common ground.

The country's commitment to bring itself in line with EU legislation has forced the issue, which proves the point that, unless we have commitments such as those of EU membership, we would never get down to taking certain decisions.

The reaction of the social partners to the new law has been, to me, devastating (the use of the hyperbole is on purpose). The employers' organisations are asking for compensation from the government in various forms, to help them offset certain increases in costs that may result from the additional protection that the law gives to employees, even though they claim they agree with the underlying principles of this new legislation.

If one agrees with the principle of something, then one should put one's money where one's mouth is and not expect Joe Bloggs (man in the street and ordinary taxpayer) to pay on one's behalf.

They made things worse for themselves by being conspicuous by their absence during the discussion in parliament. Everyone has the right to use one's free time as one deems fit, but if one feels so strongly about something to the point that one asks for compensation, then one should make the position felt more through actual physical presence.

This is what the trade unions did, whose bone of contention is not those parts of the law that have strengthened the position of the employee but (the famous or infamous) Article 64.

Article 64 deals with what are generally referred to as essential services. In fact, it designates a number of posts/functions as essential services and because of this designation, persons filling these posts/functions are not allowed to strike.

All these posts/functions are either within the public service or within organisations that provide a service of national importance.

There are, therefore, strong social and economic reasons for such posts/functions to have been included in the list. The trade unions see this as a threat to the rights of employees; in truth, it is a threat to their own position and their ability to use that position in an authoritative way.

The trade unions have said that rather than having essential services covered by legislation, they would much rather have them covered by special agreements with the respective employer. In my opinion, this is not acceptable, as past experiences have shown. I have had a personal experience on this point during the industrial action taken at MIA in April of 2001.

The collective agreement of MIA did stipulate that when a strike is called, certain employees would still have to continue with their work to safeguard the continuation of the service albeit at a slow pace. On that particular occasion, the trade unions did not ask any employee to continue working.

There is one solution, which safeguards fully the rights of the employees, and that is to have compulsory arbitration whenever the employer and the trade unions disagree. However, the trade unions are against compulsory arbitration because it limits their space of manoeuvre.

This is why I believe opposition of the trade unions to Article 64 is not based on the limitation of employees' rights but on the reduced possibility of calling industrial action (probably by a small number of employees) in areas that affect critically the rest of the country.

My opinion is that Article 64 seeks to control the monopoly position of certain posts/functions, and, as such, protects employment. In the long run, this is what concerns most employees: will they have a job to go into, and are their rights safeguarded enough?

A couple of practical (even if hypothetical) examples prove this point. If there were industrial action by air traffic controllers or by persons providing the fire and rescue service at the airport, who is most likely to be affected? There should be no doubt that it is the tourism sector that would be most negatively affected, hence jeopardising the employment of thousands of employees.

Similarly, if there were industrial action by a few customs officers, responsible for clearance of exports, who is likely to be negatively affected? Again, there should be no doubt that it would be those employees working in those companies that need to have those goods cleared to get them to their customers.

Can we afford to have companies and their employees at a standstill because employees in a customs department do not like a change in procedures because it is going to limit severely the amount of overtime they work?

The answer is an unqualified "no"! Our country is too small and therefore too dependent on its ability to export its goods and services, and hence too vulnerable to be able to afford such threats, which one, then finds, are nothing more than luxuries for a few employees.

This is why Article 64 is in defence of work. It prevents employees from taking action that would jeopardise the work of other employees.

I do appreciate that the position I have taken in this week's contribution shall not be to the liking of employers and trade unions and may even be considered by some as extremist. But what is extremist about taking a stand that safeguards jobs?

Our efforts should not be directed at safeguarding the position of employer organisations or trade unions but at safeguarding the sustainability of productive activities in this country and the daily bread of the employees that are involved in these activities.