|
He is a gentle giant, but General Workers Union Secretary General Tony Zarb has a delicate balancing act to perform on the issue of port workers. Here he gives his side of the story
Tony Zarb is the embodiment of classic union militantism. Zarb is a man of large stature, leads the biggest trade union and survived an internal putsch to depose him after last year’s general election.
But the man I meet this week is a different sort of guy from the clenched-fist, podium-thumping union leader I saw during the massive unemployment demonstrations organised by the union at the beginning of the year. Zarb has a veritable problem on his hands with the port reforms being proposed by Government that seek to terminate the General Workers’ Union monopoly in cargo handling operations at the port.
In this situation Tony Zarb is wearing two hats; one as a shareholder and another as a workers’ representative. And the situation necessitates a delicate balancing act.
Cargo Handling Co Ltd. is the company that enjoys a monopoly for handling merchandise on the ground at the ports. It is fully owned by the GWU. Even so Zarb sees no conflict of interest between the two roles.
In a decision announced earlier this week Government refused to give Cargo Handling Co Ltd the right of first refusal before the contract is opened up for competition.
“We expected a positive reply from government,” is Zarb’s initial reaction. “Now we have to see what can be done within the circumstances that have developed. Internally a lot of work is being done to assess the union’s position in view of the responsibility we have for the 120 people employed with cargo handling. Unfortunately, as things appear today, their employment is uncertain after June 2006.”
He admits the union is wearing two hats in this situation but insists the interests of the 120 employees are as close to the union’s heart as is its position as a shareholder. “It is a harder task than normal. There have been few occasions where the shareholder has to cater for the interests of its employees.
“It is not a conflict of interest. We have tried to merge the interests of the union as a shareholder with those of the employees. We are not saying that if we are happy with an agreement in the interest of the company we will discard the interest of the employees. Until now we have managed to find a formula that balances out both interests.”
I insist that as a union leader it would be unethical for Zarb to use the strength of the union to advance the cause of the Cargo Handling employees when their company is owned by the GWU.
He is of a different opinion. “The first thing we will be doing through the section representing the 120 employees is to officially ask government to include a clause in the tendering document binding the company that wins the tender to take on board all the 120 employees.”
The argument baffles me. If Cargo Handling Co Ltd will be competing with other companies for the port handling tender, how can Zarb expect government to bind the winner to take on board all of Cargo Handling’s employees?
“We are asking government to guarantee the employment of 120 employees irrespective of whoever wins the tender. Otherwise what is to be of these families? They are also our members apart from being employees.”
I insist this is a competitive tender and Government will most probably not accede to this demand. “That is why government has to be careful,” Zarb says. “Even if they weren’t my employees, we would be making an official claim for the workers to be absorbed by whoever wins the tender. We have done this in the private sector. As a union, whenever a takeover occurs we always insist that the new company absorbs all workers.”
I insist that the argument here is not the same as a legal acquisition, merger or privatisation of a public company where unions may have a reasoned argument for the new company to absorb all employees.
“This is a takeover,” Zarb insists with a telling smile on his face. “It is a polite takeover to hit back at the GWU. Whoever wins the tender will still need to employ workers to do the job. If Cargo Handling Co loses the tender there will be no scope for the company to exist and the jobs of 120 people, or rather families will be on the line. I have to defend the rights of these workers like I defend the rights of other workers.”
Zarb then extracts a logical argument that could have easily come straight out of an Edward de Bono lateral thinking text book. “Government has incessantly been saying port reform will be carried in a way to protect the livelihood of employees involved in the different sectors that operate in the scene. The GWU’s request to guarantee the employment of its 120 members is a chance for government to put into action all it has been saying,” he says.
The union leader does not hide the fact that Cargo Handling Co Ltd is a financial backbone to the GWU.
“It is important like all the other companies owned by the union, but it is true that the union’s finances will receive a blow. If this is a move intended to break the GWU’s back by attacking its finances than it becomes a totally different ball game. These things occurred abroad, especially under the Thatcher years in Britain. I don’t exclude anything,” Zarb says.
He argues that Government’s populist cry that it will be terminating the GWU’s monopoly is far from the truth. “To start with our ports are full of monopolies. In most cases they are natural monopolies because of the country’s small size. Government already said it intends having just one operator. This means that government will be dismantling the cargo handling monopoly to replace it with another monopoly. We are going from one monopoly that belonged to Cargo Handling Co Ltd to another monopoly that belongs to Mr X.”
Zarb insists the strategy to attack Cargo Handling Co Ltd has been picking up for a number of years. “But nobody tells the whole truth about Cargo Handling,” Zarb argues. “Which private operator, according to a pre-established agreement is entitled to raise rates each time the cost of living rise is given, and for 10 years decides to renounce such a right?
“As for what some claim are the exorbitant fees charged by the company all I can say is that Cargo Handling charges official government tariffs. If these are too high, government can change them. The union does not impose tariffs.”
About the appointment of a subcontractor, Zarb says the concept was adopted long before the GWU took over the cargo handling operation.
“There was an agreement between the subcontractor and the GRTU over charges for handling certain operations and they are abiding by that agreement. But from us, the subcontractor is receiving what is due according to the official tariffs,” he insists.
“Cargo Handling is also attacked for not issuing a tender for the subcontractor. That is absolutely untrue,” Zarb rebuts. “In the beginning of the nineties, Cargo Handling had issued a tender and at the time there were companies who submitted their bid. However, Cargo Handling had been summoned by then-minister Dr Joe Fenech, who was responsible for ports, and asked us to reach an agreement with Salvu Meli.
“Fenech’s idea was to have Meli involved in the cargo handling operation so that the company would not bid for another tender issued by Sea Malta, which was to be awarded to the Burdnara Group. After all these years it is unfair to attack Cargo Handling for not issuing a tender when it was constrained to do so by the minister of the time.”
What about the criticism that Cargo handling does not have the right equipment? Zarb shoots the ball back into the Malta Maritime Authority’s court.
“According our agreement Cargo Handling is bound to advance Lm100,000 to the Malta Maritime Authority every year so that the latter provides the necessary equipment. Up until this day, Cargo handling has paid MMA Lm1 million and the authority has not provided Cargo Handling with any equipment despite repeated insistence on our part.
“Furthermore, how many people know that Cargo Handling pays Malta Freeport more than Lm800,000 a year for the use of equipment on merchandise intended for the domestic market? Unfortunately, this information is not made public.”
Zarb adds that stevedores take less than an hour to process their documents with Cargo Handling. “We are an efficient company. Just ask stevedores how long they take to process papers at Malta Freeport or with the Valletta port authorities,” he says.
“To try and justify their criticism Malta Maritime Authority quote from a survey conducted among port users. The truth is they sent out 27 survey questionnaires and only received 10 answers. MMA are basing their arguments on the replies of those 10 operators. We have a copy of the survey and when the moment is right we will publish it.”
Zarb says Cargo Handling is only responsible for a small portion of the total cost it takes for a container to be processed. He criticises government for trying to give the impression that port reform is achieved once Cargo Handling’s monopoly is transferred to somebody else.
I broach the subject of union militantism and ask Zarb whether the GWU’s subdued image is due to maturity or the precarious economic situation, which allows little space for the union to be tough.
“The situation is precarious. But although a union has to be careful on how it acts it can never give up its right to resort to industrial action. It is not a question of becoming more mature.
“Whatever case crops up, the union evaluates the situation to determine whether the employees concerned can afford going for industrial action and decisions are taken accordingly. Industrial action is always used as a last resort.”
Like other union leaders in Europe, Zarb is worried about the employment situation, describing it a very delicate one.
He speaks of his experience at the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development: “In the MCESD we suddenly piled all the country’s problems on the table and are expecting a solution to them. We agree with discussion and agreement but not with imposition. Employees in various companies are being subjected to worse conditions because of the bad situation, and now we are asking workers to make sacrifices on a national basis.
“I want to be clear on this; the GWU is not ready to dismantle all that it has strived for in the past as regards workers’ rights. There are a lot of areas where agreement is possible and this does not necessarily imply eroding workers’ rights.”
Zarb laments the lost opportunity in attracting a German electric van maker to Malta. “Only recently I was in contact with the German industrialist who wanted to open a factory in Malta employing 400 workers to construct electric cars. The plant is now being built in Germany and is at an advanced stage. We lost that investment because of bureaucracy.”
Zarb believes much more has to be done to curb tax evasion and criticises government extravagant expenditure on Malta House in Brussels. “It sent the wrong message at a time when people are being asked to shoulder a heavier tax burden.”
He then targets the authorities that have sprouted over the last 10 years. Describing them as monsters, Zarb argues thus: “Instead of restructuring the departments that used to perform the same work, government embarked on an expensive project. Now Government comes to the MCESD asking the social partners to decide whether we can do without some of these agencies.”
Zarb insists the MCESD has too many things on its agenda and says it is “far-fetched” for anyone to expect a decision on the social pact, pensions, the health system, civil service reform and competitiveness to be reached before the November budget.
The GWU leader is brief when I ask him what relationship exists between the union and the Labour Party. “It is a normal relationship, we are not at loggerheads. The Labour Party does not interfere in the work of the union. As long as I have been secretary general there has never been an occasion where officials from the Labour Party came to me and ordered me to do anything.”
As for his relationship with Prime Minister Gonzi: “I know Lawrence Gonzi better than I knew Eddie Fenech Adami during all those years because we had a lot of contact with Gonzi when he was Social Policy Minister. My appeal to the Prime Minister is one: take note of what the GWU has to say.”
|
