Many have penned articles and expressed views about the first year of the Partit Laburista in office.  I will deal with one aspect which as yet has been handled with kid gloves -precarious employment.

Until some months ago, precarious employment ranked very high on the national agenda. The party now inGovernment did not mince wordsand vowed to stamp out precarious employment.  The statements on this issue were bold, clear and left no room for misunderstanding.Workers’ wages and conditions of work of those employed with service providers had to be pushed upwards.  Trade unions, workers and the rest of society were repeatedly reassured of this promise.  Vociferous unions and determined employers’ organisations were invited to give their sound counsel to Government on this issue.  Reports of productive social partners’ meetings made headlines. This was followed by a set of rules and regulations which werepublished by the Office of the Prime Minister.  The application of the national minimum wage and basic conditions of work remained unchanged for workers employed with service providers.

In a nutshell, service providers employing janitors, security officers, clerks, carersand other workers in other grades were reminded that their workers could not be paid below the national minimum wage, presently set at €165.68 weekly.

The national debate about the national minimum wage, and whether this should be increased, has also surfaced on the national agenda. Some reports claim that the national minimum wage is not sufficient to make ends meet at the end of the week.On the other hand, others claim that increasing the national minimum wage will push upwards wages and salaries and may result in Malta becoming uncompetitive.  

Presently hundreds, thousands of workers in different categories of work are employed with various service providers, the large majority of whom are paid the minimum wage with the barest possible conditions of work.

Looking at the issue from the workers point of view, they have good reason to complain and exercise pressure on politicians. From the service providers’ perspective, they have very limited opportunities to make a profit unless Government takes the decision and put money on the table.

Strange as it may be, and in contrast with the bold statements made by the PL some months ago,government contracts for a wide range of servicesare still being approved by the General Contracts Committee at €5.38 an hour and at rates which are at times even lower.  Making some quick on the back of the envelope calculations, one finds that this will leave a profit margin of approximately €1.24 an hour to the service provider.

But then, out of this meagre profit, subtractions should be made before the service provider can find profit.The service provider will have to pay the following:

ü  National Insurance contribution 

ü  yearly bonuses

ü  Sunday premium

ü  shift premium

ü  night shift premium

ü  vacation leave

ü  sick leave

ü  injury on duty payment

ü  14 weeks maternity leave in case of pregnancy

ü  office administration and ancillaries costs

ü  uniforms and equipment  and

ü  training costs.

I am taking the liberty to conclude that Government is not expecting service providers to make good for these deductions out of their own pockets and trust that Government is still intent on keeping its promise to workers engaged with service providers.

Government seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place.  Hopefully, Government will overcome this hurdle and continues to lead the way as themodel employer. In this regard, clear instructions should be given to all politically-appointed members to boards of authorities and public entities, and to the General Contracts Committee, to ensure that contracts are not awarded to the cheapest bidder but rather to service providers who are able to support their workers with decent wages and conditions of work. 

In this regard, Government is aided by two former trade unionists - namely Mr Mario Cutajar, Principal Permanent Secretary and Mr John Bencini, Chairman of the MCESD- who both can speak with authority on precarious employment and who can easily point to the cause of this issue.  I am sure both gentlemen can give sound counsel to Governmentwith the aim to eradicate precarious employment.

I trust that this issue is long overdue and should be addressedonce and for all.   The Ministry of Finance will have to find and put money on the table to address this issue. After twelve months in office, it is regretted that government entities and authorities are still seeking services from service providers at rates which are a race to the bottom,eatingaway at workers’ rights and denying a decent profit to service providers.

Addressing the issue of precarious employment would be in line with the challenge to combat poverty which remainsa priority for most of the national stakeholders.  Poverty is defined and measured in various ways. The most commonly used approach is relative income poverty. Each household’s income, adjusted for family size, is compared to median income. Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor. This ‘poverty line’ is the agreed international measure and used throughout the European Union. Precarious employment, as defined by the PL, undoubtedly pushes workers and their dependents into poverty.

The PL is now expected to deliver on its promise.  It is time for action.  The time for promises is now over.

[email protected]