Editorial

It is not the first time that a dispute at the shipyards flares up to an extent that threatens to snowball into a full-scale confrontation. It is the jump, usually dramatic in scale, from one stage to another that is so often perplexing in matters that concern the dockyard.

The reason for this is not hard to find. Having been a political hotbed for so many years in the past, outdated attitudes take time to die out. It is the yard's "past" that has shackled successive administrations from making real headway in taking the enterprise to commercial viability and keep it there.

It was wrong on the part of a group of dockyard workers to stop work one day last week to show solidarity with colleagues suspended for allegedly having been found asleep on the night shift. If workers were to do this every time colleagues are called to account for action that runs contrary to their duty, the work schedule at the enterprise they work for would not be worth anything and contract penalties pile up.

If, in the case of the dockyard, a group of workers wanted to show solidarity with others who were on suspension from work, they could very well have done so at the lunch break or after work. Their action reflected the mentality of the past, when most felt that whatever dismal commercial circumstances their place of work found itself into, there was always Her Majesty's government (in the time of the Admiralty) or the Maltese taxpayers (since the changeover) to cough up the money for the payment of their salaries.

Times have changed and the yard has up to next year to make it to commercial viability. But it looks as if not all at the yard has understood the implications of what this means.

When productivity is said to be falling short of expectations, is it not suicidal on the part of workers to stop work and add to the yard's problems? It needs to be said too that the case should have been left in the hands of the management and the disciplinary board.

It is fully understandable that the government is eager to see the yard meets the "commercial viability" target and that it shows itself very sensitive to any interruption in the work schedule at the enterprise. But was it at all necessary for Investments Minister Austin Gatt to come out warning the workers so quickly as he did immediately after the stoppage of work by some 50 workers? Has he not warned the workers enough of what is at stake if they fail to make the grade?

The warning should have been given by the management, and the General Workers' Union would have been irresponsible to escalate the dispute, as it had in fact threatened at one time, when the case had not even been heard by the disciplinary board. Why does the union persist in such tactics? This is what probably enraged the minister who, in plain language, told the workers the government was not prepared to tolerate the kind of threats so common in the 1970s and 1980s.

Maybe the minister wanted to nip the dispute in the bud. But now that all the shipyard workers know exactly what is expected of them and what kind of consequences they can expect if they do not meet the target, the workers, the management and the GWU ought to live up to their responsibilities in full. There is no need for anyone to dish out further warnings.