Editorial

In a way Malta's trade unions are letting the workers down. An unfair accusation? Yes, if it is levelled at the unions individually, for each of them work assiduously in the interests of their members. But if taken collectively, it is not difficult to conclude that however hard the accusation might sound at first, it is in fact fair and should make them increasingly aware of the ironic situation in which they have placed the island's trade union movement as a whole.

The main aim of any trade union is the protection of its members but in the normal course of events in a country's social and economic development there are times when particular situations call for collective efforts to overcome common problems.

In Malta, the trade union movement is largely divided into two, the General Workers' Union and unions in the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions, the CMTU, with the largest member in the confederation being the Union Haddiema Maghqudin. Attempts over the years to form a national council have all failed and we still have a situation where the two major unions, the GWU and UHM, look at each other with distrust.

Workers members of the UHM consider the GWU to be under the strong influence of the Labour Party and those in the GWU think the UHM is in the Nationalist Party's political orbit. The UHM is in a much better position than the GWU to defend its name over this as it can well quote many instances when it called actions in times of Nationalist administrations. The same cannot entirely be said for the GWU, which for a time had gone so far as to fuse itself with the MLP.

On and off, both unions are caught in skirmishes that only help to widen the rift that exists between them. The latest is over the demonstration that the GWU held in Valletta to protest over unemployment. Trade unions that did not feel that holding street demonstrations was the right way to help create jobs were depicted as if they do not have the interests of the workers at heart.

This was too strong an insinuation for the other trade unions to ignore. In no time after the demonstration, a UHM official said he believed the main aim behind the demonstration by the GWU was to destabilise the government and create tension under the pretext of layoffs. Quite a strong comment, one that was openly shared, as expected, by many people who support the party in government.

Other comments only helped to put into perspective the rift between the two unions. UHM general secretary Gejtu Vella was quoted as saying: "As long as the GWU remains an instrument in the hands of the Labour Party, it is impossible for us to work together. In the field of trade unionism, it is unacceptable for a political party to use a union to gain political mileage".

The question is: Who is benefiting from such rift? Definitely not the worker, on whose behalf both unions preach so much. Are they not then, through their actions, letting the worker down? When the times call for collective action to see how the country can grapple with its current problems, workers generally expect their representatives to work together for the common good. The unions are failing to do this.

To be fair, the UHM is strongly advocating a social pact but would all the social partners be prepared to take part in it?