From Mr R. Debono

The following is based on random letters from local newspapers. A product for sale – the same, exactly identical, product (not an imitation) – a box of four pills, made in Europe, perfectly legal, with no tax added: in Malta Lm22, in the USA Lm8, in the UK Lm8. Why such a huge disparity in price? Do sole importer rights protect the local importer? How is the buyer protected? By having to buy the pills from the UK?

A seat on a flight: same destination, identical product and service, same taxes at same destination, same date and time: three vastly different prices from three airlines for the same product! Lm130; Lm72; Lm52. Does fair competition allow the consumer to choose, especially if all the providers of the product are doing nothing illegal or irregular? The lower priced providers are making a profit. Why are these prices so hugely different? Is it because some “strong” people are over-protecting too many people who do not really want to work, who are only a burden on those who want to work, and a burden on who wants to buy? Do these strong people think that the world is going to change for them, or that they have the power to change the world? Do these people want to sleep for 40 years, and expect the rest of the world to sleep with them? Have Singapore or Monaco been asleep for the last 40 years?

When one looks after (looks after and not protect) people who really want to work, the long term and end result is “a better price”. That pleases the buyer and the buyer brings more buyers. Do you like eating in an empty restaurant? Fair competition should not pose a threat nor a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Fair competition should follow the rules of sensibility and fair treatment both for the honest and dedicated worker, and for the buyer.

If a producer (employer) gets rid of, or encourages boarding-out good and honest dedicated workers, the price of the product will definitely rise, because eventually the percentage of the unproductive “burden” workers will rise. These can be protected, over-protected, and over and over-protected for as long as the people protecting them understand that the world will not change for them. In the meantime no amount of shouting and threats will stop the world nor time from moving-on; and neither will it stop the good workers who were “gotten rid-of” or boarded-out, from fairly seeking a new enjoyable working environment, even if that will compete with their former employer. Is that not fair competition too? Or is that not allowed? Is there a democratic law against it? Or is there just a “gang” law?

If a producer has far too many employees, and if half of them are non-productive, what sensible argument does the producer have to keep at arm's length, or even get rid of, the good workers? What sensible argument do the people, who over-protect non-workers, have? Are they not themselves unknowingly helping the producer to close down completely?

Is it the good and honest worker at fault? Is the buyer at fault? Or is it that the product is too expensive? Would not fair competition solve most of the problem? How can a good runner improve on a speed record if there is nobody to compete with? The unions know this very well; that is why they accept the responsibility to look after workers, and not the non-workers, don’t they?

This letter is based on questions so that everybody has the freedom to provide themselves with the answer they choose to give. The answers will give a vastly varying ‘price’ index that the people will have to, or choose to, pay, until we all decide to wake up. There are people whose hobby is to sleep; and there are people whose hobby is to work and contribute towards the well being of others. Whose side should a Workers Union take? Fair competition allows people to choose from a wider range. Can that be sensibly allowed? Is that fair?

Reggie Debono