The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was set up in 1919 and has worked incessantly ever since to promote the rights of workers worldwide.  Unfortunately, in the past and today, the welfare and rights of workers have not been universally promoted, established and protected. Confronting this problem, the ILO was always conscious of the difficult challenges it would have to face in its endeavours to improve the wellbeing of workers in all countries.

No time was lost in immediately confirming that the task ahead required the support and collaboration of governments, workers and employers.

These considerations gave birth to an ILO made up of these three partners, which achieve and guarantee results whenever they genuinely debate, discuss and operate together.

The partners decide on ethical sets of rules that become mandatory as governments subscribe to them through “conventions”. Today, in general, people take for granted so many features of the world of work which came about through the unstinted work of the ILO.

One can mention the 40-hour five-day week, the right to vacation leave, sick leave, overtime payment, the right to strike, the right to freely become a member of a workers’ trade union or an employers’ association, and so on. These features today are widely incorporated, but there is still not enough acceptance. 

The maintenance of these achievements, and the need for further progress, requires constant monitoring and interventions from the ILO. In 1944, the ILO Declaration of Philadelphia highlighted particular principles and it was stated that “Freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress.”

In 1988, an ILO conference adopted a solemn Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, reaffirming the commitment of the international community to “respect, to promote and to realise in good faith” the principles concerning the rights of workers and employers to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

In 1950, the ILO set up a tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association.  The members on this committee derive from governments, workers and employers.

This was followed up in 1951 by the creation of a commission and a committee to examine complaints of violations of freedom of association.

It is erroneous on the part of government to promote a forced and compulsory union membership for all employees

So, this is the international industrial relations background that needs to be kept in mind when entities, like governments and particular unions (which should know better) hint at or express a desire for the adoption of illegal and outdated concepts, like forced union membership for all.

It is erroneous on the part of government to promote a debate on the possibility of introducing in Malta a forced and compulsory union membership for all employees. The government considered this illegal request to be worthy of a debate, in spite of chapter 42 of the Constitution of Malta, which states: “Except with his own consent… no person shall be hindered… to belong to trade or other unions…”

Following a significant negative reaction from relevant employer bodies, (MEA and COCE in particular), a different approach was emphasised. Rather than pushing for all employees to forcibly become union members, the promoters of these measures would be happy to allow the option of not joining, so long as the equivalent of the union fee, (approximately €40 per annum), or less, is paid by the non-members into a Trade Union Fund, this for the benefit of all unions. All unions are in full agreement on this.

They justify and want a payment from non-members, as they contend these employees enjoy benefits brought about by union collective agreement negotiations.

So now it is a question of money, even though it is known that particular unions enjoy a healthy revenue from government support and tax-free membership fees. Going on membership returns submitted by two major unions, there are some 80,000 fee-paying union members. This is supposed to generate €3,250,000 revenue per annum. Some unions are known to have investments that yield further income. So why is there an insistence for more income through a tax on employees?

It seems that this insistence for money derives from a notion that super funded unions do a better job. Now there is no doubt that there are, and there will be, rogue employers, and at the moment there are plenty, so unions are needed to be alert and intervene. However, they will intervene not because they have economic clout but because they persistently believe in their mission and role. 

Employment abuses do keep on occurring and the radars of unions should be picking out these misdemeanours. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, (DIER), too should be alerted to uncover illegal exploitation.

So really it is not just about money. In truth rather than engaging in energy and time-wasting debates, on proposals verging on the illegal, how about a focus on serious and effective monitoring of work practices in places of work? 

The DIER does not need further legal powers to engage in fieldwork and inspections that should uncover and check abuses, be they miserable wages, below the minimum, be they extended unpaid hours of work, be they denial of periods of rest, vacation and sick leave. 

Undiscovered or tardy discoveries of abuses and illegalities show up an incompetent and uncommitted DIER and indifferent unions.

Unions should not limit themselves to protect just their members, they have a moral obligation to widen their focus and extend help to all, and this not necessarily against payment of fees.