Last Wednesday June 12 while commenting on local newspapers during my usual slot on Campus FM I dared to speak the unspeakable. I criticised the directive jointly issued by the University of Malta Academic Staff Association (UMASA) and the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT). On Friday 6th June – the anniversary of the Sette Giunio riots - the unions directed us members of the academic staff at the University to keep on marking examination scripts, assessment scripts and dissertations but not to submit any results.
Horrors of horrors during the programme I said that I do not agree with the directive.
A long yawn, not serious negotiations
Let me put things in perspective.
The issue is about the renewal of the collective agreement between the University and the academic staff. The term of the previous agreement expired in 2003. This is not a misprint. Yes you read well. 2003 is the correct date. I think that this is not the way to handle industrial relations. It is simply not on to take five years to re-negotiate a collective agreement. Fault for this lies with different sides. Part of the fault lies with the unions. There was a fight for recognition. Both UMASA and the MUT said that they represent the academic staff at University. For quite some time the unions were in disunion.
Part of the fault lies on the Industrial tribunal which took its time to decide. Had it decided before it did, things could have started moving much. At some point the unions agreed to work together. UMASA is now representing the academic staff at the University while MUT represents staff at the Junior College.
But more than a year has passed since negotiations re-commenced. They say that a week is a long time in politics. I don’t know whether there is an equivalent to this in the case of industrial relations. But, in my opinion, a year is far too long a period of time. Since it takes at least two to tango, make love or create an industrial dispute than naturally government and the University have to carry their responsibility for this delay.
The Government and University did conveniently sit on the fence while the Unions were fighting it out between them. Once that was over they should have embarked on the process of negotiations a tamburo battente, as they say. It is in the interest of the Government and the University to see to it that collective agreements are not left hanging.
There was a temporary agreement before the election. (Quite naturally the election had nothing to do with it!!!!!!!!!!) Now the negotiators have been resumed. But it seems that the nut, which is tough, is far from being cracked despite all the assertions o the contrary.
Whatever reasons one comes up with and whichever way the blame is apportioned the bottom line is very simple: Taking five years to re-negotiate a collective agreement is a recipe for disaster as frustration is being piled on top of other frustration.
Such a long period of time to finalise negotiations gives you the impression that there was an extended yawn and not serious negotiations.
What to do, that is the question
All this notwithstanding I still do not agree with the directive given. I think that it is entirely unfair for students to go through exams with the threat that the results will not be published within the framework usually set for the publication of such results.
What should one do? Engaging in an intensive media campaign to explain our case and get students, their parents and the general public on our sides is the most obvious thing to do as a first step. People out there look at us and say: how lucky! They work half a year and get paid for a whole one! Alienating students and the general public is certainly not the way to go about it. Unions seem to find the basic fact of life too difficult to comprehend.
This is a strategic kind of reasoning; mine was one of a moral kind. I do believe that we as professionals and educators have less rights than others when we come to the point of taking concrete actions to acquire what we believe to be our rights. The least that could have been done by the Unions is to say that results will not be withheld in those cases when undue hardship would result.
Speaking one's mind
It can be that I am wrong. Or that I am a hopeless idealist lost in a utilitarian world. Or that I am a fool to think that I have the right to disagree and say so publicly. Ranks should be closed and dissenters should be silenced, some may think. I can understand all such accusations or positions. What I find hard to stomach is when people impute unsavoury motives. Those who know me know that I speak my mind and what I said about the issue does not have anything to do with the fact that I am the audiovisual policy advisor of the Minister for Education. But on second thoughts I can very well understand that some people think that way. This is because many, unfortunately, behave in that way.