Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1477424
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 28 AUGUST 2022 9 INTERVIEW competitivity, or social well-being? earners to go hungry? Or that we should change an agreement that has worked well for over 30 years… just like that? Without any discussion whatsoever? No, no, no. That is absolutely not acceptable to us. We've al- ready made it clear to govern- ment: we will not budge an inch, from the original agreement. And in fact, the government has since come out with a state- ment, to the effect that the CO- LA mechanism will remain as it is, for now. Besides: in all this talk about 'competitivity', nobody is men- tioning the fact that it has actu- ally increased, in Malta, over the past few years… … only because of the govern- ment subsidies, though… Yes. And we agree with that. In fact, one of our most im- portant proposals, in our pre- budget document, is that the government should continue to subsidise the cost of electricity: because that offers stability, to both the commercial sector, and also to domestic households. To us, it is important that em- ployers have the peace of mind of knowing that the price of en- ergy, fuel and cereals – among other things – will remain the same. And it will help with economic recovery, too. Because if the war does come to an end, and prices do start to stabilise; the fact that businesses were helped during the worst of the crisis, will only contribute towards a faster re- covery. But there is a flipside to all this: the same government sub- sidies also resulted in a situation whereby – if you compare what is happening here, to the rest of Europe – Maltese businesses are in a much better financial posi- tion, today, than elsewhere in the EU. Here, let me read out a sec- tion of the European Economic Forecast for 2021: "According to the latest statistics issued by Eu- rostat, the real unit-labour cost is predicted to decrease this year, and next year. If real unit-labour costs decrease, then productivi- ty is rising; if it decreases, then productivity is falling. […] It is predicted that the real unit-la- bour cost will decrease by 2.5% in 2022, and 3% in 2023…" Now: the 'real unit-labour cost' represents the total amount of money each em- ployee costs the employer: not just in terms of wages; but also in additional expenses tied to productivity, and so on. So if it's predicted to decrease this year, and next… it means that the competitivity of Maltese businesses is actually increas- ing: NOT decreasing. Either way, however: I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the well-being of all Malta's work- ers, in the name of 'competitiv- ity'. And even less, to change an existing agreement, from one moment to the next, with- out any discussions whatsoever. Having said this: if the Chamber wants to discuss possible chang- es AFTER the next budget – so that we come with a new agree- ment, next year – I have no problem with that, myself. But not today. Today, we will not budge an inch from that agreement… and that's non-ne- gotiable. Moving onto another issue now: the Chamber of Com- merce came out with another statement recently: one which describes the recent Air Malta 'golden handshake' deal as an 'obscenity', which creates 'two different categories of public sector employee'. The GWU, on the other hand, agrees with this deal. Don't you see a contradic- tion, in your own position? Not really, no. But let me start with this: last January, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana – to- gether with the Air Malta chair- man – had announced a restruc- turing plan for Air Malta, to be discussed with all the relevant trade unions. Bear in mind that several of the airline's sectors - the pilots, the cabin-crew, etc. – are represent- ed by their own unions and they all took part in the discussions. I thought I'd point this out, be- cause – judging by certain com- ments that were made – people seem to think that it was 'only the GWU'. Not, mind you, that it bothers me, to be given all the credit… but the fact is that there were four unions – not just one – that took part in those discus- sions. But in any case: our own point of departure, as GWU, was the same as it has always been. Our main objectives were that the workers' employment had to be guaranteed; and that there would be no loss of income. And we reached an agree- ment, to that effect. By March, all the trade unions had signed an agreement, that the discard- ed workforce would be re-ab- sorbed: either by the Public Sec- tor, or by individual government departments... not as members of the Civil Service – because that's not possible – but through the IPSL (Institute for the Pub- lic Service). That was the agreement we signed last March. Afterwards, however, a clause was added – mainly because there is a large contingent of those workers who are approaching retirement-age anyway – to also allow for the possibility of an early-retirement scheme. Effectively, then, those workers were given a choice: either to be re-employed by the government, with the same salary; or else to accept a sum, and retire. And the sum itself was also agreed, by the way, in negotiations involving all the unions, representing all the relevant sectors. So it's not as though this agree- ment – the early retirement scheme – was suddenly 'invent- ed' only now, in the last few weeks. It is something that has been planned, and discussed, since last February… You said it yourself, though: the choice was to be re-em- ployed by the government… 'with the same salary'. We all know, however, that there is a huge discrepancy, between the salaries paid by Air Malta; and the salaries in every other public entity. So doesn't this al- so create – as the Chamber put it – 'a privileged class' of public service employee? I can only speak for the sec- tor represented by GWU: i.e., ground-handling. And what I can tell you is that the salaries in that sector are NOT the 'phe- nomenal salaries' that people out there seem to think. But another mistake that is be- ing made, is that… the Chamber doesn't have the same infor- mation that we have, as partic- ipants in the previous discus- sions. This is why, for instance, their estimates of how much this scheme will cost, to the tax-pay- er, are completely fictitious. The Chamber is assuming that ALL the employees will choose ear- ly retirement, over re-employ- ment. But nobody can say that, for certain. The reality is that we have no idea how many will opt for the sum and how many choose the job. Now: were it up to me – and I've said this before – as a trade-unionist, I would always argue in favour of the 'job', as opposed to the 'money'. Because my concern is to represent the interests of workers; as such, I am interested in 'employment'… not 'retirement'. But then, in the case of an Air Malta employee who is only two years away from retirement any- way… and who chooses the 'sum of money', over the 'alternative employment' that we negotiat- ed on his behalf last February… [shrugs] who am I to argue, at the end of the day?