One has to wonder what direction the General Workers’ Union wants to take. On Thursday night, GWU secretary-general Tony Zarb told the Prime Minister to chose between dialogue or confrontation – yet if one heard the last speech he made to members, it did not sound in any way akin to a call for members to look into dialogue.

In fact, it sounded more like war cries, to get members to approve the threat of nation-wide action. Perhaps even more militant was the tone of the union’s president, Salvu Sammut.

The union said that the government must stop its “guillotine” policy of terminating the employment of surplus workers in the event of company restructuring. But what one fails to understand is the fact that the government has actually offered alternative employment in the case of Sea Malta.

Moreover, if one takes Interprint as an example, some of those being laid off are getting huge pay offs. In addition, they are demanding alternative employment by right. Sounds like a case of wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too.

Now, though, the union has called on government to come to the discussion table to avoid strikes – with the precondition that government drops its “guillotine” policy. One asks: where is this guillotine policy? As stated, the government has offered alternative employment to those at Sea Malta, surplus workers at PBS were moved to other government departments while others were given a nice golden handshake.

Dock workers were given alternative employment and again, those laid off were given a nice termination package.

The union cannot demand alternative employment by right, especially when the government has actually offered it and that offer has not been taken up.

But again, one questions why the union stirred its members up into a furore at the last GWU members meeting, using phrases such as “we will fight,” “we will take to the streets” and, amongst many others, phrases such as “we are not cut off below the waist” and “I don’t care if they call me Mussolini in the balcony”. These are words of confrontation and conflict, not dialogue.

The union cannot change its tune from one minute to the next and expect the Prime Minister to just drop his guard and go for “dialogue”. After such threats and accusations, the PM could not be blamed if he did not know what the union’s real stance was.

The union, granted, is the largest workers’ representative body in Malta – and while one cannot fault it for standing up for its members – which is, after all, its function – it cannot simply bring the country to a halt because of 11 employees at Interprint. Interprint was a company making a loss and, as mentioned, those being made redundant will receive severance pay – some of them a very generous amount. The union is right to ask government to help in seeking alternative employment for them. But in no way is this a right. One asks what the situation would be, had it been a company in the private sector.

One hopes that the country can avoid a summer free of wide-scale action. Perhaps the union should explore dialogue first rather than stirring people up, before backing down and then appealing for dialogue. If the situation had been handled calmly, then things might not have come to a head as they have.