Two interviews with the leaders of the largest trade unions published in this newspaper over the past days have highlighted the stark differences not only between the two unions as institutions, but also between the two secretary generals’ views on trade unionism in Malta.
The General Workers’ Union and the Union Haddiema Maghqudin represent the majority of workers and they function in their interest – yet their way of dealing with problems is totally different.
On one hand, you have GWU secretary general Tony Zarb insisting on the need for militancy – even going as far as saying that it is good for the workers and the country. On the other, you have UHM secretary general Gejtu Vella stressing the need for meaningful social dialogue as the method used by the UHM to achieve its goals.
Mr Zarb believes in the militant attitude to get what the GWU wants for workers. But Mr Vella takes a more traditional approach for trade unions – fruitful discussion.
Mr Zarb explained that being militant did not mean causing a fracas or hurting people – far from it – but rather working in the workers’ interests. “Taking people to the streets in protest is also a part of a militancy policy,” he told this newspaper.
Is Mr Zarb suggesting that a trade union has to be militant to be effective? No doubt, we are sure that the GWU does its utmost on the negotiating table to safeguard the workers’ interests, but there are times when it needs to be more flexible.
The two union leaders both agree in principle that Maltese workers have too many burdens. Even here, however, the approach is different. Mr Zarb still insists on taking the GWU’s campaign onto the streets, while Mr Vella takes a more cautious approach. Instead of protests, Mr Vella said he looked forward to the establishment of a board to revise the tax-bands and evaluate the burdens that are affecting workers.
Mr Vella also believes that the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development’s operation should be reviewed. Often described as Malta’s second parliament and a “talking shop”, Mr Vella is proposing to restructure the council and introduce a voting system. To implement changes to the country’s Constitution, a two-thirds majority vote in parliament should be achieved.
He thinks that such a system should be introduced at the MCESD too and that the consensus clause is removed because this was preventing the council from taking important decisions. Even if voting is introduced, Mr Vella said the government would still have the free hand to take the final decision.
Both trade union chiefs agree that a trade union council would be beneficial to the country and to the workers. Mr Zarb pointed out that the trade unions were close to an agreement when the discussions on a social pact were under way in 2004. He added, however, that the TUC and the social pact were two different issues and one did not depend on the other.
They both agreed that the social pact could eventually be signed. But Mr Zarb listed a number of conditions that would have to be met if the union were to agree to it.
In a nutshell, the GWU and the UHM have the same ideals – the workers’ interests – but their approach to finding solutions to the country’s problems is different.
The GWU insists on a militant policy, the UHM on fruitful discussion. There is much common ground between the two as there are differences. But that is what makes the unions attractive to different groups of workers.
The country needs both the GWU and the UHM. At times, being militant may help, but this option should only be used in the extreme cases, when all other avenues have been exhausted. We believe that sitting at a table to talk is better than preaching to the converted in Republic Street.