Different reforms, different strategies

When facing national problems, such as a financial crisis, everyone would feel the pinch and, so, all should shoulder part of the burden. Thus, certain advice, such as to increase productivity if we are to make it through, should apply to all, no matter the nature of one's work, how strong is one's trade union, whether one is bound by a short service contract or how old one is.

Everyone has the right to enjoy life because the sun rises for all! Excuses are no go in emergency crisis situations when you have a sinking Titanic.

I don't think that, in the event of such a horrifying scenario, the sometimes cruel Mother Nature will give any preference to people wearing smart uniforms, to privileged people or those aged over 50. Everybody would have to give a helping hand, otherwise they all drown!

Our country is sinking slowly. It is very densely populated, exploding with an aging population and continuously being invaded by illegal immigrants!

We already saw several measures being implemented in the public service over the past years, such as drastic reductions in overtime and stringent punctuality rules, but these are just the tip of the iceberg.

Much more awaits many unlucky workers due to reforms in the pipeline. However, a few thousand other workers seem to always remain glorified! For these guys, the good times are not over yet!

As an example, take the strategy being proposed for the health reform. It is not simply about building and moving to a new hospital to improve the services for the sick.

It also involves drastic and, in certain instances, even stressful measures for most health care workers. No wonder so much health professionals are resigning. I know of health professionals who were offered an attractive package and later found they were not entitled to parental leave.

I checked about the situation of "glorified" employees abroad but I could not find one country where all their conditions tally with those in Malta.

Even if such a country did exist, one would have to see whether such country has the enormous deficit Malta faces and whether the government there is forcing all citizens to produce more.

The idea of uniting union leaders, put forward by a particular union, sounds good but in practice it is hard to achieve when so many differences in conditions of work exist between different government ministries.

I remember one union saying that, by removing public holidays, the government will end up spending more on a category of its workers.

Imagine a worker who not only does not work more than 40 hours a week but in fact works much less and then selfishly demands not just one break but two! Once the two breaks are officially granted, said worker would demand payment for extra work during break!

And, his over-generous employer accepts his greedy request but when the country is facing an economic crisis this same employer tries to implement measures for all to increase productivity, arguing that everyone (like it or not) has to make sacrifices due to difficult times.

Of course, those with two breaks and shorter working hours continue to enjoy their conditions.

The first reaction by one union to the proposed pension reform was that it does not mind that the retirement age increases to 65 so long as its members are exempted!

It tried to justify this arrogant statement by the monotonous argument of the stress its members face, as if only these people are stressed at work.

Adding insult to injury, most government employees are labelled as lazy and unproductive whereas the other lucky guys who never work 40 hours a week are branded "hard workers". I think it is pretty obvious that if the working times of most employees were to be compressed into much shorter periods, and perhaps also spread their rest time over two breaks, they would be seen to be much more occupied during their much shorter stay at work! Also, if the authorities had to give some five months holidays (including Saturdays) to most employees, these would surely make less use of their sick leave entitlement and, hence, have more chances of qualifying to the full pre-retirement leave (as per new collective agreement)!

They say that health comes first and foremost. Indeed, a mistake in the health profession can lead to fatal consequences.

Most health workers are already under stress due to pressure of work, severe staff shortages and long hours. Also, it is not the first time we hear of aggressive patients who physically attack a dedicated professional and the hospital security and the police have to be called in to intervene.

And what about the high risks of contacting a disease? So, why does the government look through a different lens at health employees?

I hope that, during talks on the pension reform, our politicians realise two things: that apart from being unfair that we put everyone in the same basket, this reform could also partly address the anomalies that exist between employees of the different ministries.

I suggest that the more one officially works, the earlier one can retire - an incentive to increase productivity by discouraging abuse such as excessive sick leave.

All I am saying is that the majority who work 40 hours a week retire just two years before the others who had much more time to enjoy life during their working careers. To sustain my argument I mention these facts:

1) soldiers and policemen work long hours and retire early;

2) the new public service collective agreement encourages employees to work more in order to benefit from pre-retirement leave;

3) for the past two years I wrote several articles on other newspapers and posted feedback on www.pensions.gov.mt regarding this topic and not only was I never officially criticised but there were people who supported my ideas.

Other discrepancies exist in the way certain reforms will be implemented. Take the proposed health reform again. In spite of the fact that this may adversely affect a number of health employees, especially those who are in their 50s (and are obviously used to certain relatively "good" conditions of work), once the reform is implemented, it would come in force in toto overnight and be applicable to all.

This is, however, not the case with the proposed pension reform that greatly favours those in their late 40s upwards. If it is necessary to raise the retirement age gradually over a long period of time in order to have a smooth transition from the present system to the proposed one why isn't the same philosophy adopted in the case of the health reform?

Surprisingly, both major unions agreed that the pension reform should be implemented very gradually. The same reasoning however is not applied to the health reform as it seems it would not affect them.

We would face a lot of protests were the proposed pension reform not to discriminate between different age groups because mature people usually make most sound!

We all know how they reacted when vacation leave was cut by just four days this year! Now, this was just a tiny tickle when compared to the "time-bomb" issue of having to work for four more years!