I refer to the letter by Charles Vella, General Workers Union media and information executive, Saving the ship from sinking (TMID, 22 November).

In my some 40 years of employment, I received annual reviews (sometimes more frequently) which determined (1) my continued employment and (2) the size, if any, of rises or bonuses depending on my performance. The “performance” was graded in terms of productivity and the achieving of goals, which, at the time, seemed arbitrarily set by my employer. I had no union to defend me and/or guarantee my employment. I retired when I thought that I could no longer surpass my goals and when I had reached a point at which, through careful investments, I could retire fairly comfortably and enjoy a few years of retirement.

Many a time – and I have been through several recessions – I have seen unions negotiate with employers, not over how much more they can squeeze in order to enhance their members’ wages and benefits, but rather how much to give up. If Mr Vella doubts the foregoing, he should do some research which will prove my point.

General Motors, with its back against the wall, asked the unions in the US to convince their members to give up health and other benefits, which by the way, also included pensions. The argument was very simple. The workers can continue to enjoy employment with reduced benefits and with better efficiency, or face the unemployment line after years of working for GM. Fortunately, better judgment prevailed and the workers gave up enough to enable General Motors to have another go at it and re-establish itself as one of the top automobile producers in the world.

Does not the same apply to Malta Shipyards? If the turnover has increased tremendously, why have the profits remained stagnant? There are only two reasons for this: firstly, inefficiency and secondly, increasing overheads. Yet the General Workers Union declares that it will fight against layoffs and pay cuts.

The union was given notice years ago that the subsidies, which contributed substantially to the national debt, were to be phased out by 2008. If the union insists that its workers are doing enough, then what will it do when the shipyards are put into receivership?

It is simply doing what it has done on many occasions – pushing the situation towards a precipice in the hope that the government will provide a last minute safety net for those who fall victim to the union’s actions. Not this time. Minister Austin Gatt has made it clear from day one. No more subsidies after 2008. By my calculation, the union has barely enough time to convince its members to produce more, waste less and perform tasks on time.

Other industries, having found it too expensive to continue their operation here, simply closed the doors, threw out hundreds of workers and left. The union cried foul, but in the end, when these companies closed their doors, there was no one left to argue with.

No, Austin Gatt is not always right, but then how many more times has the union been wrong? I do not think that the honourable minister can be accused of giving mixed signals, of crying wolf. It is for the union to find solutions and to stop contradicting itself over and over again.

Why would anyone expect Malta Shipyards to continue operating after 2008 unless it finds itself able to sustain itself without handouts from the government?

Joe Martinelli

London, Ontario

Canada