|
After months discussing a social pact that failed to materialise, government decided to remove workers’ right to vacation leave for public holidays falling on weekends. Gejtu Vella, the Secretary General of Union Haddiema Maghqudin, urges the government to go back to the drawing board
At the entrance of the union’s headquarters, a pile of pocket diaries with the UHM logo await visitors to be picked up and start planning their next year. Browsing through one of them, one notices the traditional public holidays marked in bold.
 Nothing new for us accustomed to the list of yearly holidays, although this time around government intends to cut them down by getting workers to forfeit vacation leave for public holidays falling on Saturdays and Sundays by removing Clause 17 from the labour laws.
The union’s Secretary General, Gejtu Vella, is equally adamant in getting the government to reconsider its decision.
“I have to state that the national interest is not the government’s monopoly,” he says at the outset. “Apart from working in the workers’ interest, we always look at the big picture, so much so that we were protagonists in the EU membership issue.”
With that disclaimer cleared, I ask him how after months of discussions that failed to lead to a social pact, unions are now saying they weren’t consulted about the public holidays measure.
“This was never discussed, not even during social pact discussions,” Vella says. “It’s a half-baked, haphazard measure suggested to government that will solve nothing. It was not negotiated because none of us would have negotiated a half-baked measure.”
What would have been a full-baked measure then?
“It would have been a number of initiatives agreed between social partners,” Vella replies. “For example, a wage policy, whereby in the next three years workers would get cash payments, part of which would be tax-free; a special fund contributed by employers for retraining of workers; and a number of vacation leave days would be removed, but much less than 10 over three years.
“The government is saying that over the next three years it will be doing away with 10 public holidays, but it doesn’t stop there. It’s permanent. What we were negotiating for the social pact was all tied to three years, after which everything would revert back to normal. We were about to reach an excellent agreement that would have given our country the competitive edge in industry and manufacturing, but for some reason which I really can’t understand employers were not receptive to this. Our proposals were shot down even though they would have generated competitive growth in all the sectors.”
Still the government is there to govern and decide. There was no agreement so it had to take a decision.
“Nobody disputes that, but the government shouldn’t decide a measure like the one announced in the budget when the Industrial Relations Act had been in the pipeline for 10 years and enacted after hours upon hours of discussions,” Vella says. “Everyone was satisfied with the new labour laws, so government shouldn’t come just now and change them arbitrarily.”
Vella says that by doing so government will merely be putting social dialogue on the backburner at a time when unions, employers and government need to agree on fundamental issues to kick start the economy.
“What’s the message it is giving? That whenever government feels it is in the national interest it will just go about scrapping parts of existing laws unilaterally? That whenever there is no immediate agreement through social dialogue government just assumes it knows best and bypasses everything else? Structured social dialogue is a very difficult process. Government needs people who are able to advise it well but it also needs people who know what workers are going through.
“Our appeal to government is to get back to the drawing board. I feel confident, strongly confident, that employers do appreciate that if government tampers with the law it will be in for industrial commotion, and employers would prefer to have consensus on this one. They know that a social pact is the best way forward, wherein everyone takes ownership of the country’s problems. Even at this eleventh hour, if we go back to the drawing board we should reach an agreement soon. If necessary we should meet at Christmas time, set a timeframe, and I’m sure we will be able to reach a solution by the end of the year.”
Apart from scrapping Clause 17, government may even remove two public holidays altogether from our calendar and in that way avoid legal turmoil when it comes to collective agreements which would still enable workers to increase their vacation leave.
“If government removes two holidays unilaterally it is still going to face problems. It can do that, it can remove all public holidays if it wants to, but then are we saying that government didn’t even realise the implications of its own budget? Is that the case? Government should have realised by now that the economic advice it was given was mediocre. Moreover, if we were discussing a social pact for three years, why is the government announcing a measure that will be in force forever?
“Our position is clear: government risks making a big mistake to go ahead on its own. It will spell the end of structured social dialogue. What’s the use of meeting on the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development? What’s the point of having social dialogue? What’s the point of having the Employment Relations Board? If government knows it all, it should just act on its own. We used to think it was an outdated practice to have the government deciding unilaterally and unions striking and employers on their own.”
The General Workers’ Union has already declared it will launch sectorial strikes if collective agreements are not honoured. Will UHM follow suit?
“We already said the collective agreement is a contract between the union and the employer. It is untouchable,” Vella says.
And what if the removal of Clause 17 will leave part of the working force entitled to leave because they would be covered by collective agreements, while others that are not covered would lose their leave entitlement?
“It would be wrong. It would not only be discriminatory but also ineffective. We spent a whole decade to get the labour laws amended, and now that the ink has barely dried, government wants to start tampering with it.”
Changing industrial law would still leave government workers unaffected, Vella says.
“They have a management code saying that public holidays falling on Saturdays and Sundays have to be added to vacation leave. If government wants to change it, then it has to negotiate with us.”
Speaking about the upcoming new collective agreement for the civil service, Vella says the union will not give in to a blanket removal of half-days in summer.
“Wherever half-days were removed we improved the workers’ conditions, we raised their salaries… one has to look at the needs at the work place and take it from there. It’s useless to make a blanket statement, saying that all government workers have to work full-day all year round. You can’t generalise and expect us to make a blanket agreement just to entertain an urge voiced by the employers’ representatives. What will you gain by that?”
Does Vella accept the argument that government needs to sack workers to curb public expenditure?
“No. Government has an obligation to give adequate training to its workers and use its resources. How do you explain to me the fact that despite all its employees, it farms out services to private companies? How can you explain private cleaners working for the government, for example? For the first time after several years, in this budget, there is an investment in machinery. How do you expect your workers to work without equipment? Of course, you have people who are deployed in the wrong places, but that means that we have to start identifying where government workers are needed and what training they require.”
Despite the similar stand adopted by the General Workers’ Union, Vella says this is not the right time to form a united front.
“I won’t go into discussions about a common front on this issue. We had much more serious issues where we should have set up a united front. I think it’s wiser to keep our separate ways and maybe one day we’ll be able to set up a united front on much more serious issues. We shouldn’t turn this issue into something bigger. It’s not a holy war – government decided to go on its own and we’re warning it not to. But when you consider the EU membership issue, VAT, and such big issues, we still didn’t manage to make one common front so it’s not the case of uniting on this one.”
Turning the subject to the pensions White Paper, Vella says the union is discussing all its implications and should be taking an official stand by the end of January.
“There are several issues which will make anyone grimace, such as the retirement age, a 40-year contribution period and others,” Vella says. “But I don’t want to pre-empt our discussions.”
The union is meanwhile awaiting another MCESD meeting in a bid to clarify, once and for all, the reasons behind the electricity surcharge.
“We asked for an MCESD meeting as soon as we saw the press reports putting the reasons behind the surcharge into question,” Vella said. We’re still waiting for a date. Despite the fact that Minister Austin Gatt is boasting that there is ‘management’ at Enemalta, we are not impressed. They should have had good management for years, and we shouldn’t be paying for bad management. We have been told the surcharge was justified because of the oil price hike since last August. No distinction was made between crude and fuel oil. Now we have to establish whether this is really the case or whether the surcharge was introduced because of Enemalta’s mismanagement.”
|
