The budget is once again upon us, and one of the main talking points is always the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) – by how much do you think this should increase so to keep up the price increase in things such as fuel?

The answer to this is a bit more complicated.  It’s not a question of what one thinks in monetary terms as this is not just saying how much we want.  What we need to do is to take decisions on the mechanism which is behind the COLA.

I think it’s about time that we discuss whether we should be using the COLA or not – maybe it’s time to start considering the living wage, while a number of social partners always speak about how the COLA gives the same to everyone – a blanket adjustment irrespective of whether a person is earning minimum wage or €50,000.  This is complicated because from a social aspect it does sound a bit nonsensical that there is such a blanket adjustment, but on the other hand we need to understand that the world of work has a salary structure where there is a relativity between the grades in that structure, so giving more to one end than the other will eat away at those ratios.  There we need to see what mechanism we should adopt.  If we do decide that we will remain with the COLA, then we need to revise the mechanism – society has changed, and the weighting should change to reflect that.  If you take, for instance, a mobile phone in 2000 had a certain weight, but now it has a higher weight, which is why adjustments are needed. 

The most important thing is that whatever system is used, the equation is very simple and understandable. People out there want to know the simplified equation, and the work behind it should be transparent so experts and professionals can double check the calculations to see if they are just. Unfortunately up till now I am yet to see the willingness to address this issue; this is something that can’t be brought onto the agenda today and solve it tomorrow.  We are already late but if we don’t start discussing it tomorrow, it will be implemented even later while there are vulnerable people out there who are being hit and hurt.

 

When we say different mechanisms – what are other options apart from the COLA that can be considered?

One of the things that is being spoken about is the living wage, which is an alternative mechanism which can be used.

 

The living wage being what exactly?

Generally abroad it is taken as being related to the geography of a place; so living in London or in Birmingham makes a difference because life and its costs are different.  I am not saying that we should adopt that mechanism in its entirety here, but I’m saying that we should explore and look into something similar – not necessarily geographically as I don’t think there is a substantial difference between Mellieha and Zurrieq – based on other indexes and figures which can help to find a final formula.

 

Last week you released your proposals for the budget – 92 of them.  One of them was a government-run website for workers to use; could you expand on what this exactly is?

This was an idea which we came up with some time ago – it may have been adopted as a mention in a budget but thus far it hasn’t been implemented.  The idea is to deal with precarious work – we still see this in Malta a lot, even though the political narrative has now turned to make it seem like it doesn’t exist. Precarious work comes out from, for example, someone giving you a contract to work as if you are self-employed when in reality you only work with that particular someone – a legal form of contract but using it to abuse you as you are not getting sick leave or any leave in general. What we intend to say here is that the abuse of legal forms of contracts is stopped.

Out there we also have a situation where the labour market is growing and enforcement is shrinking.  There is no way that we can have an army of enforcement officers checking 230,000 work contracts, so we are proposing the marriage technology with the law and create a portal operated by a government agency which will have all the legal forms, the minimum conditions established in Maltese labour law, and when employing someone, an employer has to upload that contract which, once agreed, is then registered.  In that way we recognize that registered contracts are taking the same conditions as established by law.

We shouldn’t start from the CEO – we should start from the workforce that needs protecting, and I think that if there is a frank discussion, this can be a means of making sure that everyone has a contract with the basic minimum rights as established by the law, which would be a good start.

 

One of the focuses of the past years was to reduce the gender pay gap – what measures do you suggest to continue reducing this?

Very simple – that everyone is in a union.   There are collective agreements and we do not have those problems within the structures of the union.  In no agreement from decades ago will you find a different salary for a man or a woman and we never accepted, or will accept a woman in a certain grade being paid less than a man.  Most of these cases come when the person is not in a union, and especially when they are not covered by a collective agreement. There is a legally binding document in a collective agreement, and no collective agreement ever makes a distinction in gender – so to my mind, that is in itself a solution.

 

This builds onto the point of mandatory unionization for workers, a point which has been raised recently – what is UHM’s stand here?

First of all, this was an idea which came out of our 2015 general conference where I said that it is time for all workers to be in a union. A lot of people come up to us and say that their managers don’t allow them to be in a union, or that they are managers and now cannot be in a union – that’s not what the law says; everyone has a right, by law and by the constitution, to associate with a union.  We find people where it is actually stipulated in their contract that they cannot be in a union – which is illegal and unconstitutional.

When one comes to regulate people, the point is singular; in Europe, we speak about the process of social dialogue. What is this – governments, employers, and unions sitting on one table and talking.  However, while speaking about this need for social dialogue, we allow employers to not sign up to employer’s associations, workers not to sign up for unions, and hence invent their own dialogues. That’s where problems such as precarious work comes – and it is the unions which end up having to solve them.  Yes, workers have the right to association; that is on which union you choose, not whether you choose to be in a union or not. Do you have the right to go drive a car without insurance? Your right for association is in choosing what insurance you want – nobody tells you to go to any specific company – not whether you want to have it or not. 

What we don’t agree with is the implementation that everyone, from top to bottom, must suddenly go into a union – that will create havoc. We are saying, let’s start with the low-income brackets because they need the most protection, and because the unions do not have the capacity to suddenly cater for all 230,000 workers. But let’s at least start.

 

Some people however interpret the right to associate includes the right not associate with anyone – does that hold?

Yes, how the law is written, it is open to interpretation. My point is not trying to interpret the constitution, it’s saying that we need to decide where we are going and be coherent.  Today we are boasting about social dialogue and everyone being around the table – no, not everyone is around that table.  I don’t represent those who aren’t members and I don’t know their concerns, and it is the same for employers as well. If social dialogue is the way to regulate the labour market, then we need to say that associating oneself is a duty. If we permit workers and employers to be outside of this environment, it then creates problems for those like us who are regulated; if a worker is accepting certain precarious rates, not only is he suffering, he is also affecting the position of those who are regulated. 

 

We know that there was an issue with the MCESD wherein you stopped attending their meetings – what is the situation at the moment?

We cannot, as a union, accept that we go to the MCESD and when we ask to do a presentation then that request is not accepted.  The MCESD is there so that when the government feels it needs to make a presentation, then we listen; when the employers feel the need to make a presentation, then we listen; but when the UHM feels the need to do a presentation on the increase in fuel prices, then I think it would be right that we are given a date to do this.  The meeting did not come – this is not one episode; I don’t think anyone sends a list as long as ours on issues to discuss, and we have never received an invitation.  We have taken a stand and not gone to the last two meetings, Minister Edward Zammit Lewis has intervened and we have a meeting with him in the coming days and we hope will see progress. That we haven’t been given the chance to express ourselves is not acceptable.

 

The MCESD in their reply seemed to indicate that this subject was discussed in a meeting on 25 September…

We didn’t go to that meeting; I don’t particularly care about what they discussed. We should be allowed to express ourselves, and that appointment never came. What they are saying is a half-truth in the sense that it may have been discussed, but that’s not the point; that point is that we asked to do a presentation and we were not given the chance to do it.  That is not acceptable.