As a constant weekly flow of minor and major incidents of corruption occurs, and gets revealed, there is a need to invent and create distracting controversial issues. Such issues are strategically required to divert the attention from the prevailing malfeasance of this administration and instead shift the attention of the public to hot and divisive debates, on matters artificially and unnecessarily created and promoted.
As it so appears, I am convinced that the proposal to impose a forced union membership, against a payment of a fee, on all employees in Malta is one such diversionary tactic. I think so since it is ludicrous that 35 years after the UK discarded the notorious malpractice of the “closed shop”, Malta’s ‘futuristic’ Labour administration wants to turn the whole of Malta into such a “closed shop”.
For the uninformed citizen, the “closed shop” practice allowed a union to impose a forced membership on all employees, current and prospective, of a company. Taking up employment with such a company required obligatory union membership.
Under a Labour government, in the 1970s and early 1980s, something similar prevailed at the dockyard, where employees that refused to join the General Workers Union were victimised, hounded, blacklisted, refused overtime, etc.
The Prime Minister’s encouraging hints, towards the introduction of obligatory union membership, fly head on against one of the fundamental International Labour Organisation freedom principles, namely “freedom of association”.
For almost a century the ILO has nurtured and promoted this principle worldwide.
Without hindrance or fear, employees must enjoy the right to freely join a union of their choice, so that collectively they enhance their ability to negotiate their conditions of employment, and protect themselves from abuses or exploitation.
It is universally understood and accepted that such ILO freedom also implies the full protection of the right not to become a union member.
Our Prime Minister however appears to totally disregard and not believe in this ILO disassociation fundamental right. In so doing he betrays a 1960s mentality, or there might be something more sinister behind this stand.
This “obligatory membership” gimmick is being flogged as an improvement on workers’ rights, since a higher union membership implies stronger unions that will negotiate ever better collective agreements and provide more effective protection from injustices and exploitation.
Could it be that our Prime Minister is projecting stronger unions to make good for the shortcomings of the Director of Labour in chasing inadmissible employment illegalities?
Now Malta has one of the most unionised labour force in the EU, this according to the information that unions submit yearly to the Registrar of Trade Unions. This high level of membership guarantees power and a good operational income to unions. Unions do not need more money as they also have other revenue streams, coming from rents receivable, investments, businesses and government-granted contracts to train unemployed persons. This leaves us with perhaps two plausible explanations behind this forced, paid, union membership proposal.
I strongly believe the GRTU is endorsing an erroneous measure that annuls a basic universal freedom principle
The first might be even more money, union power and control of workers. Money, power and control that may overflow into the realm of politics. Aren’t we aware of unions that notoriously have always openly displayed pronounced political leanings?
The second explanation might suggest the fulfilment of a promise, a commitment, given, to a union or unions, for whatever political support might have been given. Aren’t we aware of such practices?
Now there has always been an innate hostility towards workers who, for whatever reason, refuse to subscribe to a union. Many trade unionists, in derogatory terms, refer to these workers as “free riders”, since these non-union members benefit from enhanced conditions of employment obtained through collectively negotiated agreements.
But this cannot be otherwise since unions enjoy a very enabling right whereby, with a 51 per cent membership in a company, they can collectively represent and negotiate on behalf of all (100 per cent) employees of the company.
It is to be stated that the 49 per cent non-members have to accept whatever the union decides, positive or negative. And the so-labelled “free riders” do not participate in the debate, and voting, that occurs when a union requests its members to sanction the acceptance of a negotiated package.
And a company cannot apply different employment conditions according to membership, or non-membership, of a union. If compulsory forced union membership is adopted will the UĦM accept minority GWU members in a company to vote in the ballot that will decide acceptance or refusal of the collective agreement it would have negotiated?
I am sure experienced trade unionists can comprehend the many problems that will materialise if we allow an abolition of the ILO fundamental principle of “freedom of association”.
They should also consider how such a move, which verges on the illegal, will be perceived as a tax on the fundamental right to work.
Before dismantling proven industrial relations formulae the powers that be should responsibly reflect more.
In conclusion, so that we cover all aspects of this controversy, employers have not asked for, and are not in agreement that companies should forcibly, against payment, become members of an employers’ association. Is the GRTU the exception to this otherwise employer unitary stand?
Not really, since the GRTU suffers from an acute identity problem. Sometimes it projects itself as an employer body but in fact the GRTU is registered as a trade union, representing individual traders and retailers.
On this issue, I strongly believe the GRTU is endorsing an erroneous measure that annuls a basic universal freedom principle, the freedom to join or not to join an Association.
I am sure that many persons in the category this union represents disagree with forced memberships.
Finally however, I cannot resist saying that the GRTU, UĦM and GWU do not somehow appear to me to be so strange bedfellows.
Arthur Muscat is writing in his personal capacity.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece