Leo Brincat’s contribution (TMID, 8 July) raised a few concerns regarding the privatisation of the shipyards. Every one knows the history of the shipyards, especially that of the last 30 years. We know, for example that the workers there have been represented by the General Workers’ Union for decades, during which they received assurances from their union that it was ready to fight tooth and nail to safeguard their jobs. In the meantime the ‘yards never made a penny and worse, made a large dent in the public coffers, to the extent that more than a third of the national debt is attributable to subsidies and wages to an under-productive industry.

If the workers, and more importantly their union, did not figure out that one day the cow would run dry, then it is either a case of incompetence or worse, political entrapment. Business is business and what is not profitable usually bites the dust. Why some minds think that certain groups should be exempt from reality, is beyond me. This is not a case where things were going fine but a bad couple of years came along and now things are on track again. This is a case of an unbreakable losing trend which even a seven-year restructuring plan failed to correct, mainly because there was never the will for it to succeed.

So then the question arose asking why the plant was not sufficiently modernised. Here again, if there was the slightest hint that efficiency would improve and cause the ‘yards to break even, then the comment would have been fair. But when you have the workers refusing work and the union stands behind them, then one would have to be insane to invest in a non-performer.

The government, before and after the election, stated that the workers “should put their mind at rest” and such comment is being described as political opportunism and a vote-catching (or preservation) tactic. Now the government has announced that a privatisation process is under way and that part of the proposal includes an early retirement package for those who choose to go that way. It will be their choice, so “peace of mind” does not come into their decision at all. They would be at peace with themselves, otherwise they would not be compelled to take up the offer. Most of the rest will be retained because any private owner would prefer to employ workers who are familiar with the plant rather than employ new hands and have to train them on the job.

That the shipyards were over-manned for years goes without saying and maybe some workers will be declared “surplus” to requirements. So how are they so different from those textile workers whose employer pulled their stakes and moved to a third world country whose wages are a mere pittance when compared to wages here? Are these laid off workers begging for bread and water on the streets? Certainly not and some boast that the new job they found (or was found for them), is better than what they had before, and pays more.

The best guarantee for the shipyard workers is for an interested investor to come along and radically change the way things are done in order to improve efficiency and make the business profitable. Undoubtedly, this change will create waves because some of the workers will find it hard to all of a sudden have to work diligently for eight hours in order to collect eight hours’ pay. Should privatisation fail, then bankruptcy follows.

The government, whether blue, red or green, acting in the best interest of the country would have arrived at the same conclusion. It took years of reluctance, but finally and one may add, with a not so gentle push by the EU, the right decision was taken. What is of paramount importance now is for both government and opposition to work towards the sagacious selection of the best bid for the ‘yards, based on the amount offered, what long range plans the new owner would have and the level of employment that would be maintained.

It is so hard not to intrude on the political aspect of this issue, but it is worth pointing out that the government has the right to keep its cards close to its chest and any pertinent announcements should be timely and subsequently announced in parliament where the issue would be debated seriously. “You did – you did not”, “you said – I said not” is not a debate worthy of a democratic parliament because it solves absolutely nothing. On the other hand it induces both sides of the debate to dig in their heels – to the detriment of the shipyard workers themselves!

Joe Martinelli

London, Ontario

Canada