|
The head-on confrontation looming between the unions and government is of concern. It puts in doubt whether reaching a social pact between all the social partners is at all possible.
Both the GWU and the UHM have made it a point of principle to fight Government’s proposal to remove public holidays falling on a weekend tooth and nail. Both argue that even if Government goes ahead and changes the now all too famous Clause 17, in no way this should negatively affect collective agreements in force.
But beyond the legalistic arguments at stake, the heart of the matter is competitiveness. It is the big picture that all leaders in the country need to address. The Prime Minister’s justification for the controversial decision is that the measure will help the country regain its competitive edge.
Regaining competitiveness is important, but serious doubts still linger as to how truly effective this single measure can be. At least one economist, Prof. Edward Scicluna has already said that the measure will not increase productivity, but only raises production. The overall positive impact Gonzi is hoping the measure will have on the economy may indeed never materialise to the desired extent.
One thing is certain though: Gonzi has managed to irritate salaried employees and give the impression he is on the employers’ side.
The unions are right in arguing that after years of consultation to arrive at an agreement on the industrial relations act fundamental changes must not be made ad hoc without meaningful widespread consultation. They never expected this approach from a Prime Minister who has rightly made consensus his mantra.
The unions are also right to point out that the budget may not have included a sufficient contribution from the employers’ side. The quid pro quo equation was one sided.
Irrespective of these two valid arguments threats of industrial unrest will not help the precarious economic situation further creating job instability and stunting economic recovery. Before embarking on damaging industrial action unions should seek alternative routes of dispute resolution for the sake of the very same employees they represent.
Common sense dictates that lack of agreement and looming confrontation necessitates one prudent line of action namely the growing dire need to work longer and harder to achieve a social pact. Free from the time constraints to achieve agreement prior to the budget all the social partners must sit round the discussion table and try to reach an agreement acceptable to all sides.
We reiterate our belief that the budget is a positive first step in directing the spotlight on the country’s problems but it does not go far enough to stimulate growth and job creation.
It fails to address the cancer within our economy namely the bloated public sector. We urge all the social partners to work on a long term plan with clearly identified targets whereby employees presently working in the public sector are gradually transferred to and employed by the private sector. This can only be achieved by providing fiscal incentives to the private sector and making it easier for them to invest and enjoy returns on that investment.
The leaked government email published in our front page story reveals a menacing approach by government towards the independent press. The Prime Minister’s communications coordinator has the gall to question the right of an independent journalist to probe and scrutinize government. This line of approach is unacceptable in a democratic society. In bad taste also is the official’s childish approach to report the journalist to his editor.
The very European values of open government enshrined in the European convention of human rights are being undermined by a political appointee in the pay of the public exchequer.
Our decision to expose the email as custodians of the public interest rests solely on the seriousness of the matter. It is a direct attack on the freedom of the press. The email used was a government email address; the government communicator was reacting to legitimate questions put to him in his capacity as a public official. One can only hope that this arrogant attitude is reflective of the coordinators’ personal antagonism to the section of the press referred to in his email. If this is the case he is failing the position he holds.
|
