The sudden climb-down of the hearse owners last Wednesday night, when they decided to withdraw from the Transport Federation and go back to work, left the Federation leaders with no excuse that can justify the so-called strike action they had launched on Monday morning.
It was pretty obvious, anyway, that the real issue that prompted the decision to strike was not the livelihood of the hearse-owners, but the fact that government has finally decided that the time for monopolies in the transport sector is over. The Federation had been hastily concocted by different transport sector operators to unite in resisting any moves that threaten the monopoly status that many of them enjoy. They then proceeded to plunge into a nation-wide ‘strike’ – actually a stoppage accompanied by illegal and violent actions – without stopping to think and without having any long-term strategy. They only managed to paint themselves in a pretty corner.
It now seems clear that the Federation’s short-sighted strategy consisted of ‘paralysing’ the country by withdrawing transport services; and by bullying and violently attacking anybody who was considered an obstacle, however momentarily, in their march to resist change. According to this strategy, Government was supposed to go on its knees by the evening, beg for forgiveness for daring to control them and assure them of eternal subsidies with no strings attached. If this did not happen, the next morning they would obviously switch to plan ‘B’. The problem was that plan ‘B’ was nothing more than repeating plan ‘A’ over and over again! In other words, instead of trying to garner public support and increase pressure on government progressively, they did exactly the opposite.
The lack of serious tactics these transport operators have adopted in their efforts to hold on to their imaginary rights is obvious from the fact that they have managed to rally the rest of the population against them. People are now adamantly insisting that government should not give in to the preposterous demands of the Transport Federation.
Over the years, these operators had several opportunities to show that they were committed to give a good service and respect their customers. They did exactly the opposite. Now when push came to shove, they have discovered that nobody even dreams of looking at their ‘problems’ sympathetically. The bizarre way in which they attacked anybody whom they thought might have been undermining their ill-thought out plans continued to increase public antipathy to them and to their cause.
Monopolies are always wrong and never in the interest of the consumer – even though in certain exceptional circumstances they are a necessary evil. Attempting to defend monopolies by acting in a way that shows arrogance and lack of respect for law and order can only provoke a negative reaction.
The truth is that many of these people probably do not know any better. The uncouth methods by which bus drivers and taxi drivers treat their customers are legendary. Ostensibly this was a way of flaunting the monopoly status they were enjoying. Ironically, on the first day they went on strike, bus-drivers even dressed in their nice and spic-and-span uniforms to be identified as bus-drivers – something that they usually never bothered to do in the course of working as bus-drivers! Such is the confused mind of these people.
All through the years, different government have subsidised many of these transport operators through taxpayers’ money, subsidies that came with a commitment for an improved and better service: all promises that were not worth the paper they were written on. Government even paid a hefty substantial share of the cost of new buses and gave special concessions to tax-drivers so that they could buy new modern presentable taxi-cabs to replace the scruffy stuff that they owned. All to no avail. It is fairly obvious even to the most naïve observer that the only thing that can bring about an improvement of the services offered in the transport section is competition, for which read liberalisation and the end of monopolies.
How can anyone in his right senses believe that monopolies are justified when a taxi-cab licence – rendered scarce as a result of a ‘closed shop’ monopoly – is sold at some €200,000? This happens because anyone who wants a taxi-cab licence is constrained to buy one from an existing licence holder… while the state, ‘prevented’ from issuing new licences by the system, looks the other way! What is the commuter getting from this nonsense, except disdain?
It is a shame that such a small island is overflowing with cars. Yet Malta’s incredible car-owning statistics are testimony to the inefficiency of our public transport system, whether scheduled buses, mini-vans of assorted colours or white taxi-cabs. If the services these operators offered were convenient and financially attractive, many would opt for them rather than taking the bother to spend more money and hassle to go from one place to another, especially short distances, by using their own car. Although this should seem obvious to everyone, these operators insist on clinging on to the past and on keeping privileges that they do not want any other ‘intruders’ to share.
Seizing on the opportunity given to them by the government’s decision to liberalise the ‘hearse market’, the Transport Federation has precipitated matters and has unwittingly put the liberalisation of the transport sector operators high on the country’s agenda. Now there is no way back. Trying to recover lost ground is akin to flogging a dead ‘hearse’.
For transport operators who enjoy unjustified monopolies, it is the end of the road.