To its word and to its credit the Labour Government is delivering on its promises. The initial volley of shots was fired during the very first days of its legislature.  The fight against precarious work was the first issue this Government took head on figuratively speaking.  As a matter of fact we have peace of mind that our Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are not overworked.   We have the largest cabinet of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries ever with fourteen Ministers and eight Parliamentary Secretaries.  

All will receive pay packages and perks commensurate to their respective post.  All have their PAs, and chiefs of staff, and secretaries and communications officers and aides and aides to aides many of whom now it transpired are employed from outside the public service, thus putting further pressure on the public coffers.  This kind of recurrent expenditure will require Minister Edward Scicluna and his team at the Ministry of Finance to use creative book-keeping to make ends meet. 

In addition, notwithstanding the present code of ethics for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, a parliamentary secretary has been granted permission to continue with his private practice while it has been reported that others do it discreetly.  Indeed the fight against precarious employment is on and Government is leading by example.  

Over the past months, and with greater robustness during the months leading to the last general election, Labour Party representatives battled and animated labour market issues extensively. Obviously they stopped short from giving any credit to the previous Government for achieving the highest number of workers in employment notwithstanding it is a national accomplishment so far!  During the previous administration the protection of workers from the onslaught of international cut-throat competition, which the economic recession and world-wide financial woes fuelled, was placed highly on the national agenda.  Nonetheless, Labour Party representatives were more interested in crossing swords on issues more related to the non-observance of employment laws than anything else.  They down-played the role of the trade union movement and disparaged the various initiatives taken by personnel of the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations.  An employment relationship is a relationship between two or more in employment, and like any relationship it may take twists and turns for a variety of reasons, some of which may well be the result of external pressures.  Conducting healthy industrial relations is based on various factors.  Like all human relationships, a working relationship should and must be based on mutual trust, loyalty and commitment.        

The Labour Party had a different agenda and flagged precarious work as a nation-wide outbreak and tacitly gave workers false impressions.  Repeatedly Labour Party representatives claimed that even part-time work is considered as precarious work.    The hourly rate paid also came under fire and, as expected, this was received with a loud round of applause by the audience while the leadership of the Labour Party affirmed its approval by the traditional nod of the head from the center of the stage.   Thoughtlessly, prominent Labour Party representatives led workers to believe that a Labour Government Party has the necessary tools to put an end to all irregular labour market practices.

Now that the dust has settled and all have returned to their respective tool benches as dictated by the electorate, it would be appropriate to have a proper definition of precarious work.  From the public statements I have read and followed, I have obtained the view that most are not properly versed about the subject in question.  Most speak about the eradication of precarious work, when in fact what they mean is that they want to stamp out irregular and abusive practices in the labour market.  This confusion may have been fueled further by trade union guests attending Labour Party stage-managed conferences prior the last general election when no clear demarcation between what is and what is not permitted by law was made. 

In any case, and rightly so, trade unions campaigned loudly and vociferously against precarious work.  In this regard a proper definition of precarious work should guide employers, workers, politicians and others interested in our evolving labour market.  In this regard there is no better definition of precarious work than the one promoted by the International Labour Organisation.  This states that “Although the term precarious work is coming into more common use at the international level, its definition remains vague and multifaceted. Complicating matters is the fact that the state of precarity takes somewhat different forms depending on the country, region, and the economic and social structure of the political systems and labour markets. Thus a variety of terms have emerged from particular national contexts, such as contingent, atypical or non-standard work.”  

This brings me to conclude that non observance of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act and other legal notices derived from the enabling law is not considered as precarious work but abuse. These are two different things.  In this context, as in the rest of the many other countries and in conformity with EU regulations, our labour legislation allows for entrepreneurs to set-up business operations and enter into service contracts for a defined period of time.  Companies of this sort mostly employ workers with limited skills to perform duties which need basic skills.  Such providers, mainly in cleaning and security services, though not solely limited to these areas, are awarded tenders which are contractually binding for a short defined period of time.  Over the years it has become custom for Government, authorities and other entities to seek such services.  Similarly various companies in the private sector opt to outsource cleaning and security services to reduce payroll costs. Farming-out various services came in handy to various employers.  Farming-out led to the deduction of pay-roll and administrative headaches. 

While one may have or formed different opinions, obviously and rightly so workers who are presently rendering a service to public entities but employed with one of the service provider companies now expect the present Government to lead by example and take them on board and give them permanent employment within the public service. This should give these workers employment stability, an opportunity to a yearly wage increase in addition to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and the other benefits which public service employees enjoy. This should stop abuse previously called precarious work.  Alternatively, when awarding tenders to such service providers, Government could ensure that workers’ conditions of work are well defined and costed, wages for different grades established, yearly wage increases in addition to the COLA for workers taken into account and the duration of the contract be for a longer period to give peace of mind and stability to the workers. 

While locally the labour market undeniably has a number of shortcomings and irregularities, it would be unwise to claim that our labour market is infested with workers employed in precarious work.  One would not be expecting too much from Government if instructions are issued to emulate other contracts given to ministers and parliamentary secretaries’ aides, unless Government wants to be charged with two weights and two measures, The Labour Party in government may actually find that it is much easier to promise than to deliver!

[email protected]