Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1037099
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 OCTOBER 2018 INTERVIEW started receiving messages from the media, asking us for our re- action to the Prime Minister's offer – and also from our own members, to warn us that every- thing that was said at the meet- ing was coming out in the open. To us, that is not acceptable. If we are in a conciliation meet- ing, and still discussing a pro- posal that has only just been put to us… we can't have pressure emanating from outside that meeting to accept that proposal. One of the things that was said yesterday was: 'Why hasn't the MUT taken a decision yet?' How could we? We had only just heard that proposal, and were still in the process of dis- cussing it at the meeting: asking questions about it, and so on. Yet we were expected to already have an answer. That is why we said that the conciliation meet- ing had been undermined… Be that as it may, the outcome has created the impression that the union has contradicted itself. Yesterday you said the strike would go on; today, you said that it has been called off... even if, on the surface, nothing has changed in the meantime. How do you account for the change of heart? But there was a development between yesterday and today. The proposal we were given at yesterday's meeting – and which was repeated publicly outside – was: 'Cancel the strike, and we'll withdraw the bill'. That's not the way things are done. We would never ac- cept any form of threat – no matter how subtle – to our right to take industrial action. Besides, our objections were not only to the wording of the new law, but also to the entire way the process had unfolded. What happened then, however, was that at around 6pm, there was a press conference by the Education Minister, who re- vealed that he had written to the Speaker to withdraw the bill. That represents a different position from the one we were confronted with earlier that same day. We became aware of it only after 6pm: realistically, we couldn't convene the coun- cil yesterday evening… partly because we had already had a council meeting that same morning. And I believe it's in everyone's interest that we all act prudently in this matter: we certainly don't want to take any rushed decisions. So we con- vened the council first thing this morning. We considered the entire situation leading up until that point: and we con- cluded that we were still not comfortable with the position taken by government. Why? Because the ministry had un- til that point consistently de- nied all the issues we objected to. Throughout the week, the ministry claimed we had 'mis- understood' or 'misinterpreted' the law. They even published an excerpt of the new bill, to suggest that there was no men- tion at all of any such proviso. But it was not the excerpt we were referring to: there were another three clauses, as ex- plained earlier, that did make warrants subject to those new conditions. In my opinion, we were faced with an orches- trated attempt to portray us as if we were saying heresies... as though we had nothing better to do than to raise bogus objec- tions for no reason… and that, to me, is just not acceptable. But the MUT's position still changed since then… At this morning's meeting, it was decided that – given that our objections were to those seven matters of principle we had listed out last Tuesday, and that doubts still existed in their regard – we would hold another meeting with the Ministry to discuss those objections. If, af- ter that meeting, we were still not satisfied with the minister's position on those seven points, then the strike would go ahead as planned. Because it's not just a question of 'withdrawing the law'. If the ministry's position on those points remained the same: if he still refused to ac- knowledge that those problems even existed, and continued to insist that we were 'misinter- preting the law'… all it would mean is that the next time we met to discuss the new law, the same situation would unfold all over again. It would once again be a case of: 'This is how it will be, because this is how I [the minister] want it to be'. And we didn't want that situation. The withdrawal of the law, on its own, was not enough. So we held the meeting this morning – in fact I've just come back from it now – and made it clear that those three paragraphs had to be removed; that we would not accept a situation whereby a new bill, in future, would retain the same clauses. The minister agreed, and gave an assurance that the three clauses would be dropped. There were other is- sues: for instance, the proposed law as it was being debated – unlike the existing one it would have replaced – did not specify the qualifications needed to acquire a warrant. We believe these qualifications should be specified in the new law. And we raised all the other issues as well: home schooling, and so on. Most important of all, we emerged from that meet- ing with an internal document, signed by both parties, detailing all the agreements we reached on those issues. This is why we decided to call off Monday's strike… Judging by certain reactions, some people – including, it seems, MUT members – have interpreted that decision as a case of the MUT 'backing down'. They would have preferred the strike action to continue. How do you respond to that view? I would say that the MUT would have 'backed down' if it didn't obtain any results. If, for instance, the new bill remained before parliament, and govern- ment told us: 'Don't worry: wait until committee stage, then come to parliament and we'll discuss it there'… if we accepted that, then yes, we would have backed down. Because it would be a case of accepting a half- baked 'remedy' that would most likely have got us nowhere. But we would never have accepted that. Parliament is not our fo- rum… it is a forum for politi- cians. But the remedy we have now, quite frankly, couldn't be better. The new law has been withdrawn completely; govern- ment has indicated it is ready to start talks over from scratch; we have already pre-emptively agreed, in writing, on all the major points… the issues we objected to would not even be up for discussion any more, and we have a signed document as a guarantee. In other circum- stances, perhaps we could be ac- cused of backing down; but not when we obtained the results we wanted. I might add another point: our members – especially those who, quite rightly, told us to keep up the pressure, and to go ahead with the strike – were not only concerned about the new Education Act. There were, and still are, a host of other is- sues that need to be addressed: from questions concerning the teaching loads associated with certain subjects; how the new assessment mechanism – 'LOF' [Learning Outcomes Frame- work'] – is being implemented; as well as other pending issues, including the 20+ allowance, which some teachers have not yet received. At today's meet- ing, we raised all those issues, point by point. The first part of the meeting was about the new Education Act; but the second part was about how all these other issues could be addressed. And on these points, too, there was an agreement to see how we can find a way forward. All the same: as a trade union, we will continue scrutinising govern- ment as before. If, for instance, government goes ahead and presents a new law without us having seen it… we will react in the same way. If government doesn't respect the terms and conditions of our agreement, we will take action again, as we have always done. Nothing has changed in that sense. strike…