At the signing of the new collective agreement reached between the University of Malta and its academic staff last Wednesday, one journalist, tongue in cheek, remarked that the negotiations for the next collective agreement, that will start after this new one expires on 31 December 2013, should start now if the entities involved want to reach an agreement in time.

And she may not have been that wrong, considering that it has taken years for the two sides to come together and put pen to paper. In fact, the last collective agreement had expired in 2003, and it took six years to get round to finalise a new one. The discussions that led to Wednesday’s agreement had started in May 2007, and this after the matter had also gone before an industrial tribunal.

All through this, and particularly in the last months, it was the students who suffered the most, as the dispute dragged them into the equation when industrial action was ordered and the holding of examinations was being threatened.

It was a pity that students were used as the weapon by which the academic staff finally got through to what they wanted. There were probably other ways that could have led them to the same destination, without adding on to the tension that each and every University student feels, especially when the exams are a few days away.

Industrial action is a right that all workers should enjoy, but when students and their future are involved, more caution should be exercised.

The students themselves probably took long to make their voice heard to show their disdain at what was going on, and only protested in the first week of January when there were indications that mid-year examinations would not have been held. That same evening, it emerged that the two sides had resumed negotiations and were close to an agreement, and in fact this was eventually reached and signed last Wednesday. One wonders why the students needed to “revolt” to make all the stakeholders involved see some sense.

Now that the agreement has been signed – and the word “finally” has never been more appropriate – the details that have been made public have been rather scanty. Little was said by all the people who were embroiled in the dispute, other than the fact that the lecturers’ working day has been increased by three hours to accommodate working people who would like to pursue their studies. We are sure that the lecturers have been amply compensated for this.

No reason was given as to why the stakeholders have chosen to remain silent, both on the agreement that was signed and also on the matters that kept them apart through all these months.

It has been described as a historic agreement, and this makes it even more imperative for the people involved to make the details public. Education Minister Dolores Cristina, who was present for the signing but did not say much about it, has the duty to explain why the stakeholders took so long to come to terms and, now that the agreement has been reached, what it entails.

It has also been described as a “fundamental reform”, and therefore the public, including the taxpayers and most of all the students, should know what the intended reform is going to be.

The unions, who are always the first to turn to the media each time they have a dispute and feel the need to gather public support, also have a duty towards the public. If they want the backing of the public, they should be more open when something positive is achieved, not only when they need to complain.

If the agreement reached is not implemented, we are sure that the unions will speak up and expect the media to report their protests. Therefore they should be more forthcoming now that all their needs have been met.