The opt-out clause and the GWU

I refer to the letter GWU's Stand On Opt-Out Clause (June 13) by Charles Vella of the General Workers' Union.

Yes, I have done it again, and I will carry on criticising the GWU as long as it keeps preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite. The whole story of the opt-out clause is yet another example.

In the run-up to the referendum and general election of 2003, the GWU did not tell the truth to the workers about what the opt-out clause was all about. Did the GWU have hidden, maybe political, agendas then?

I challenge the central administration of the union to deny that in 2003 they told the workers that one reason for not joining the European Union was precisely that the workers would not be allowed to work more than eight hours of overtime per week.

I am against the prospect of workers being abused by their employers (even by the GWU in that case) in the "sacred" name of the opt-out clause. I also agree that the most effective way to secure and protect workers' interests is through collective bargaining. But it is unacceptable that what is today one of the fundamental rights given to workers by the EU should be taken over by a trade union such as the GWU. Does the GWU want us to go back to those dark ages when only the "privileged few" could top up their salaries by working some overtime?

In 2002, Enemalta Corporation was found at fault by the Industrial Tribunal because one of its employees was "unjustly deprived from taking part in an incentive scheme offered by Enemalta", and all this with the full collaboration of the GWU. See Industrial Tribunal decision 1322 of case 1585, Union Haddiema Maghqudin vs Enemalta Corporation, August 8, 2002.

This is another reason why I find it so hard to believe and accept what the GWU is saying today. Two years ago it was saying that the worker was going to lose that right if we join the EU. Now it is saying that that same "right" should be taken away from the workers and bestowed on the GWU.

Why is the GWU so enthusiastic to take this "right" away from the workers? Is it because it really has the workers' interests at heart or does it want to use that "right" to discriminate against workers?