Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1040165
NEWS maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 17 OCTOBER 2018 8 Ralph Cassar is AD Secretary General and a local councillor in H'Attard I CANNOT say that I was surprised by the proposals of the Malta Employers' Association for the 2019 Budget. It is patently obvious that each sectoral association seeks to defend and promote the interests of its members, at times unfortunately to the detriment of other sectors. With few exceptions, the employers' demands are ideologically neoliberal and based on the premise that society is some kind of barrier preventing them from getting on with their business. The fact is that employers depend squarely on a well-functioning society, on infrastructure and services provided by the state and on healthy communities. Like everyone else they are duty bound to contribute to state coffers and public services. There are some points in the MEA's Budget proposals which are rather easy for us to agree with. Indeed, for example, the need to develop a sustainable blue economy was made time and again by AD. The MEA call for the phasing out of diesel and petrol vehicles, the move towards electric vehicles and other transport options echoes AD's stance in the 2017 electoral manifesto which even suggested a 20-year deadline. It is good news that the MEA sees opportunities in the transition to cleaner energy in transport. The MEA document also mentions direct orders. It is obvious that the indiscriminate and habitual use of direct orders as a public procurement mechanism is worrying, not least because it may put people's livelihoods at risk and pump money into some companies at the expense of others. It is above all an irresponsible use of public funds. Exceptions and emergencies should not become the norm. The issue of the indiscriminate, left, right and centre appointments of people to 'positions of trust' is also an issue heavily criticised by AD over the years. Such positions should only be possible in ministers' private secretariats. Otherwise it is an abuse of power and just another tool to circumvent the rules of the civil service enshrined in the Constitution. The MEA suggests an 'independent board' to monitor positions of trust – of course, given the poor and shallow political mentality in Malta – with 'representative from the Opposition'. There is absolutely no need for 'positions of trust' outside ministries' secretariat staff. Inventing boards and promoting state capture by the PLPN tandem is not a solution. It makes things even worse, giving abuse and bad governance an aura of respectability. But unfortunately the MEA document is peppered with neoliberal anti-people proposals. I'll focus on a few of these. While lauding full employment as enviable, the MEA laments wage inf lation. Staunch defenders of the 'free market' do not like the effects of the laissez-faire economy. On one point the MEA is right – the economy is overdependent on certain sectors while others are being left on the sidelines. They go on to repeat the 'too many vacations' gripe. People work to live not live to work. Maybe they want everyone on call, all the time. It is not populist to demand decent amounts of rest days, it is the effect of people appreciating more the good things in life. Another proposal regards collective bargaining for state employees. The MEA is demanding that any financial package negotiated by unions in the public sector should be given the green light by private sector representatives. Come again? I mean, come on. The example used is telling. Education is seen as some transaction, some commodity. The MEA calls for government to subsidise private schools. Again, what? I cannot understand why the MEA is even going into the issue at all. When people make choices, whatever the reasons for those choices, they have to carry the consequences of those same choices, including paying the fees necessary for that 'service'. Some choices are justified and understandable, others may be based on prejudices and misinformation. Keeping the salaries of teachers in the public sector low because private schools cannot afford the extra expense and because this may lead to teachers in the private sector moving over to the public sector is unacceptable. This proposal in particular speaks volumes of the attitude of some in the MEA towards teachers and schools as incubators of social reproduction. In my book the state is duty bound to make sure that its essential services are well-funded and employs, in this case, adequately paid and trained teachers. It is government's duty to see that the schools for the many are well-equipped, generously funded and staffed with well- paid and trained teachers. Let's keep the market with its toxic values away from education. On another issue the MEA seems to be cut off from reality. The usual right-wing mantra is wheeled out: that of people living off social benefits as some kind of threat to the common good. Maybe some employers should try living off social benefits for a year or so. As regards social housing – the problem is that over the years government sold off its social housing stock. The assumption that people purposely choose low-paid jobs is also typical of neoliberal rhetoric. Social problems are individualised – 'it is their fault, they have low aspirations'. Simplistic statements do not do justice to the complexities of issues which lead to social problems which in turn affects the life trajectories of people. The MEA proposal which takes the prize for simplistic rhetoric is this: "Social housing units need to be designed to provide minimum accommodation to encourage people to move out if they have the opportunity". Well guess what, even owner- occupied properties 'provide minimum accommodation' nowadays. Just ask people with median wages trying to buy a tiny f lat. When it comes to social housing the idea of a housing estate is old hat. Social accommodation should ideally be spread out throughout our communities, to avoid ghettoisation. Yes, people should be helped to improve their lot and eventually move out. It is the simplistic blaming of people for their predicament from well-to-do industrialists and employers which is simply not on. Not surprisingly they didn't mention how they can contribute more to society. I have an idea. How about making it compulsory for companies employing more than 50 (or shall we make it 20?) people to offer paid apprenticeships, twice a week to post-secondary students studying a trade, or profession? Some good proposals marred by socially toxic ones Ralph Cassar It is not populist to demand decent amounts of rest days, it is the effect of people appreciating more the good things in life The Malta Employers' Association regards education as some transaction, some commodity