I refer to the industrial disputes involving the government as the employer. "Turu kemm intom bravi billi tidħku bin-nies" (you show your (superior) intelligence by conning others). Words more or less to this effect were written way back in 1987 by a Maltese journalist of international repute referring to the then new-born PN government.

The PN Administration has been doing so all the time since. When the strategies of the PN and the (now) PL are compared, the end result is more or less invariably identical, with a difference in attitude and style. The former con their way about, while the latter pushed and stomped their way about with arrogant, heavy-booted, brutish force. There is no guarantee of different behaviour if and when the future ever provides them with the opportunity.

Regarding the PN conning programme, the first con concerns the friends of the PN that are overseas. All the PN Administration says and does is perpetrated with the view of projecting the image of a utopian state where everything works out to perfection with Swiss clockwork precision following divinely accurate prediction. The greatest cons, both in numbers and gravity, however, are those perpetrated against the Maltese people. I shall just refer to the trade union environment. The first con is what unions (and all other statutorily constituted groups for all that) are considered to be and how they are treated. Unions are homogeneous groups of individuals of flesh, blood, feelings and emotions who select and elect individuals from among them selves to represent them. Yet, these are treated like emotionless abstract monoliths by the PN.

The greatest con, though, is that of the negotiating table. The individuals within these homogeneous groups have to realise some facts of life, internalise them and model their actions accordingly. Once their claims or their complaints are justified, these automatically become rights to be attained or wrongs to be righted with adequate retribution in full and nothing short of that. The offer of the negotiating table is just a normative ruse.

First of all, this offer ratifies the justification of the claims and/or complaints. Secondly, the negotiating table always and invariably turns out to be a multiple loss to the group concerned. These individuals never ever get all that is rightfully theirs, while the employers avail themselves of the negotiation process to coerce employees to accept and tolerate otherwise unjustified measures. Had they been justified, such measures would simply have been applied as orders and nobody could have done anything about it. So, at the negotiating table, homogeneous groups of individuals like you and me, have to give up big chunks of what is rightfully ours at the expense of accepting to tolerate what were not rightful and justified impositions. That is a multiple con.

Under the normative guise of acting civil and mature, we are pragmatically made to sit down and accept only a bit from the whole and we have to pay a hefty price for it. That is rubbing salt in the wound. Sit at a table to sign acceptance of what is rightfully yours not to accede to what does rightfully appertain to the employer. Stop.

If that is not a con, I do not know what is. The PN are the experts! Dear fellow citizens, now you know.