FOI suggests majority voting within MCESD

The Federation of Industry believes the time has come for decisions within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development to be taken on a majority vote basis, amid accusations that the General Workers' Union is bent on making a "national show".

The FOI has written to the GWU saying it should assume responsibility for any job losses as the union embarks on a series of industrial actions.

A five-hour MCESD meeting on Thursday ended in stalemate after the GWU demanded a commitment from the government to compensate workers further for the electricity surcharge hike.

The other members of the forum had agreed to commission a social impact assessment on the electricity surcharge but the GWU wanted to know its conclusions by December 14, a deadline deemed impossible by economist Gordon Cordina.

Speaking to The Times yesterday, both FOI president Adrian Bajada and Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech blamed the GWU's intransigence for turning the MCESD into nothing more than a talk shop.

It was therefore high time for the MCESD to seriously consider whether it should do away with the consensus system in favour of one where the majority decides which proposals are put forward to the government, while highlighting which organisations were against, Mr Bajada said.

As things stand, the GWU was acting like a "veto" in a forum where consensus was not uncommon.

"We've already spoken to other employer organisations and unions and they agree this is the best way forward," Mr Bajada said.

He accused the GWU of adopting a selfish approach, as proven by its proposals to cushion the electricity surcharge impact. The government and the social partners shot down the union's suggestions.

Among others, the GWU proposed a weekly wage increase of Lm2.40, not realising the impact such a move would have on employers and investment, Mr Bajada said.

Ordering strikes now would do nothing more than dent productivity and threaten jobs, he maintained.

"In this day and age, taking to the streets and holding the country to ransom will get you nowhere. I really don't know what kind of sympathy the GWU is looking for. Ask any man in the street and they will tell you the GWU is entering the political arena. But while doing so, it's also causing harm. Just look at the fate of Sea Malta workers," Mr Bajada said.

Mr Bajada and Mr Fenech share the view that the GWU is merely out to make a "national show".

Mr Fenech said the GWU had been hijacked by its militant factions and seemed determined to drive the country against a wall.

"There was goodwill from all the social partners and again the union has disrupted everything. Is the GWU playing a political game? I think so."

Though the GWU had every right to forge ahead with its threat of a national strike, it would only serve to inflict damage on the economy. "What will happen when the workers go on strike? They will lose compensation given for the surcharge," Mr Fenech said.

Did this mean the government was ignoring the GWU's industrial actions?

"The government is taking note of them, though from our feelers we understand that the work-to-rule directive has so far had little effect.

"The GWU says it doesn't want to be bullied but the government will not be either. The GWU makes its own decisions and workers should do the same. If workers think they can achieve something with strikes, they should remind themselves what happened to Phoenicia and Sea Malta workers."

With the exception of the GWU, all the social partners felt that the oil increase burden had been distributed fairly, he said.

The government had set a precedent by granting an additional 50c increase for the fuel surcharge a year in advance. The employers weren't too pleased about it but were prepared to absorb it, Mr Fenech explained.

The government had decided to convene a meeting with the MCESD because it had faith in it.

The GWU needed to stop its rhetoric - it could not carry on insisting that the government should shoulder more of the burden when it was evident that the government had to collect the money from within. Malta needed to regenerate wealth and make the economy more productive.

"As the Central Bank Governor explained, this is not a case of redistributing wealth. This is merely a case of collecting Lm50 million from the economy to give them to Saudi Arabia," Mr Fenech added.

Mr Fenech said the government had carried out its own detailed impact assessments before announcing the surcharge hike.

"We looked at every bill and we believe that thanks to the compensation given nobody is being asked to carry an excessive burden. Don't tell me people with a certain standard of living can't take it. It's really that strata of people with a low standard of living that need to be tackled and we are doing so.

"In reality we haven't brought this about and we have tried to mitigate the burden. We couldn't have done more. If we could, I assure you we would have. We would like to be re-elected after all... but, of course, we have to govern responsibly."