This week's contribution continues on last week's discussion relating to the European Union and its possible impact on work. Last week I highlighted the fact that there could be two main aspects related to work, namely the creation of job opportunities or otherwise in Malta for the Maltese, and the safeguarding of conditions of work within an EU environment.

I discussed the aspect of the creation of job opportunities in Malta for the Maltese, which, in my opinion, would be greater if Malta were to be a member of the EU than if it were to opt to stay out.

This week's contribution is about the conditions of work, as a worker is not happy with just having opportunities where to work in order to earn a living for himself and his family, but is also eager to ensure that any acquired rights are safeguarded, that the work he is doing is not jeopardising in any way his health and safety, and that his dignity as a human being is respected.

This may seem to be an irrelevant issue as some claim that in Malta it is very difficult for acquired rights to be taken away or that any conditions of work are changed for the worse. But is it really so?

In a situation where maintaining the competitiveness of the business sector is paramount if one wants to continue creating job opportunities - and one way of achieving this is through a tighter control on labour costs - the issue becomes very relevant indeed.

However, within the EU competitiveness is not maintained at the expense of workers' rights but through support programmes that help in the upgrading of skills of employees or by seeking to achieve a level playing field among businesses as increased competition is seen to increase efficiency and down costs.

I also question whether acquired rights by employees cannot be taken away in Malta. The time when a number of employees were dismissed because they decided not to attend work in order to take part in a political protest did not happen in the times of Charles Dickens but just 20 years ago, when a not so small a number of persons today forming part of the leadership of the Malta Labour Party, were already key persons in the Labour government of the time.

Equally, one can recall the time when the law supposedly guaranteeing that no employee can be dismissed from work unless there is a just cause was temporarily suspended, with the General Workers' Union at the time remaining totally silent.

One can also mention the time when workers were not allowed to obey a legitimate trade union (the UHM) directive for partial industrial action. So the claim that legally acquired rights cannot be taken away in this country is just an illusion as a government using strong-arm tactics has done it in the past and there is nothing to stop it from doing the same thing in the future.

Membership of the EU would create the necessary framework that would generate political, social and legal stability, thus disenabling a government to use such strong-arm tactics. The reasoning that Malta would greatly benefit from EU membership because it acquires strength through unity in a European environment should be applied to employees as well - they would have greater strength through a stronger voice within a united European environment.

This is very evident from the spate of new employment regulations that were published in December and took effect from the December 27. These concern parental leave, the right of part-time employees to benefits, collective redundancies, contracts of service for employees on a definite contract, the right of employees to certain information about the company they are working with, the setting up of a fund guaranteeing wages due to workers in case of closure of the business, and the protection of employment in case of transfer of the business.

To these one may add the health and safety regulations that are already in place, and those that are expected to come into force in the coming months and years, and the other work-related regulations that are expected to come into force on accession into the EU or soon after, like the regulations related to noise or working time.

These are all regulations that have been enacted because of Malta joining the EU and no government would have any right whatsoever to suspend them or remove them. These workers' rights are safeguarded by the EU.

In effect this is why the European trade union movement is in favour of the enlargement of the EU (the more member states the stronger it would be) and why trade unions in the individual countries are in favour of their country joining the EU.

There are always exceptions to such situations as we in Malta very well know because there is not yet the full realisation that there is nothing in Maltese legislation that would guarantee that such rights are not tampered with.

There is another facet to this discussion about the EU and work. Those against Malta's membership of the EU claim that such membership would force Maltese companies to compete against foreign ones. This is a very true statement, but the main beneficiary from such a situation is the Maltese worker. Most employees already face the challenge of stiff international competition, because they work in tourism or manufacturing or the export-orientated services sector.

The lack of international competition has forced the prices of certain goods and services produced locally to go up artificially. It has been the Maltese worker and his family (in their role as consumers) that have had to pay for such artificially high prices. Why should someone be allowed to work inefficiently because of no competition and expect someone else to pay for that inefficiency?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that our country's membership of the EU would not only create job opportunities in Malta but would also ensure that employee benefits are maintained and enhanced. Non-membership would achieve nothing of the sort.