Malta’s two largest trade unions both insist that summer half days in the civil service should be retained, even though both are open to a revision of working schedules in areas where it is found to be strictly necessary.

The reduced working hours of many in the civil service for three-and-a-half months every year – from mid-June to the end of September – have long been criticised by local employer and business associations, including the Malta Chamber, the Malta Employers’ Association and the GRTU. Their arguments are in the same vein: reduced hours hinder the running of businesses, which may have to deal frequently with various public entities.

The new government has pledged to slash the bureaucracy faced by businesses, and at a press conference last week, Principal Permanent Secretary Mario Cutajar said that he was open to reviewing half-days with this in mind, even though he did stress that he did not believe they made much difference.

But the Union Haddiema Maghqudin and the General Workers’ Union are both opposed to the outright abolition of half-days, as the section secretaries responsible for government employees explained.

When contacted, the GWU’s Josef Bugeja and the UHM’s Mario Sacco both emphasised a number of points, including the fact that government employees who enjoy reduced hours in the summer work longer hours for the remaining eight-and-a-half months of the year, and that a relatively low proportion of government employees – less than a third – actually work on this schedule.

Both men also pointed out that not every government employee working reduced hours was based in an office – where the summer heat can be addressed. Others worked outside, working reduced hours on schedules that enabled them to avoid the sun at its brightest.

Still, they emphasised that their respective trade unions were open to discussions in cases where reviewing the half-day system may be justifiable to improve the service provided.

But removing half days just for the sake of doing so was “not on”, Mr Sacco argued, and Mr Bugeja concurred, stating that the GWU was “all out” in favour of half days.

“We are adamant that anyone who is on half days should remain so,” he remarked.

However, he later clarified that the GWU had no problem with employers identifying areas where half days are causing issues, and was open to reaching arrangements.

 

Past, present and proposed arrangements

Both men provided previous examples in which working schedules had been amended to provide a better service to the public.

Mr Bugeja mentioned the Passport Office: while half days are in place during summer, the office also opens from 3pm to 6pm three times a week, as well as on Saturday mornings. This ensured that the needs of everyone were met, he said.

Mr Sacco cited the UHM’s participation in discussions that ultimately led to the removal of half-days at Heritage Malta, and which even led to extended opening hours in a number of sites that are frequented by visitors in the evening.

However, the UHM representative also pointed out that any arrangement increasing the workload of government employees had to be coupled with an increased financial package.

He noted that, some time ago, the union itself had actually proposed the revision of work schedules in a department which is often cited as an example of how half days affect the private sector – the Customs Department.

The union was ready to discuss this issue, Mr Sacco said, but the government had failed to reply to its proposal.

 

In defence of half days

Mr Sacco stressed that half days could be considered to be a family-friendly measure, stating that he was aware of many who sought work in the public sector to be able to spend more time with their children when schools are closed for summer.

He also insisted that there was nothing wrong with government employees benefiting from half days, and that they should not be removed simply because others may be envious of the arrangement.

“It is a benefit, but it is one for which the workers are working,” Mr Sacco remarked. The line, he pointed out, had to be somewhere,

Mr Bugeja also agreed that a line had to be drawn, stating that any arrangements reached should be reasonable, and that one should not go overboard in a bid to appease employers.

Doing so, he remarked, would be akin to expecting shops to stay open at all hours, simply because it was more convenient.