Trade union performance

I refer to the contribution by the media and information executive of the GWU entitled Two Unions, More Facts (January 20) in reply to mine Two Unions, Two Facts (January 14).

If Charles Vella wishes to think that my concern regarding the GWU being "privileged" by the MLP is only the reflection of the partisan interpretation of the PN, than let him think so. I will not fall into his trap and defend the PN.

What was even more shocking to see was the GWU's delegates, including Mr Vella himself, giving an enormous standing ovation to the Leader of the Opposition when Alfred Sant made a statement that, to many, meant the GWU was, is and will also be a "privileged" partner of the Malta Labour Party. That statement has placed the Union Haddiema Maghqudin and other politically independent unions and their respective members, who are all Maltese workers, in an unfair disadvantage.

Mr Vella describes the relationship between the GWU and the MLP as a simple "historic similarity". In making such a statement Mr Vella is only insulting the intelligence of the Maltese workers. I think this relationship was and still is more than just that; it is purely a "political partisanship".

Can the fusion for many years of the respective statutes of the MLP and the GWU be considered as a "historical similarity"? Was sitting on the Labour government's Cabinet by the secretary general of the GWU in the past simply a "historical similarity"?

What Mr Vella did not mention was the fact that for a long number of years the GWU and the MLP were officially "married". Now that they have been divorced for quiet some time, it seems that the desperate lust for each other cannot keep them apart.

The UHM is celebrating both the 40th anniversary of its foundation and also the 40th anniversary of "total political independence" from any political party in Malta. Over all these years, the UHM did not stop in front of any stumbling block but kept working exclusively in the interests of the Maltese worker.

With regard to the water and electricity bills and the 47.5 per cent surcharge, the UHM made many representations to the government so as to ease this burden a bit. Two of the proposals made by the UHM and which were accepted by the government were that all the pensioners should be given all the 50c per week COLA (not just 2/3) attributed to the rise in the fuel prices and that all workers are to get the same 50c per week COLA in advance and not in arrears, over and above the Lm1.75 COLA for 2006.

What did the GWU do? The only thing it did in respect of the water and electricity bills and the 47.5 per cent surcharge was to become more militant than ever before and take to the streets, achieving absolutely nothing.

What did the GWU do back in 1998 with regard to the rise in water and electricity bills when the price of oil was just $12 a barrel? Nothing at all. For months on end, they kept on saying that they were preparing a report, which report was never finished and published and most probably never initiated. Besides, they also said they were holding negotiations with the then Labour government, again achieving absolutely nothing.

These are not just facts, this is history.