It is, by far, the most controversial proposal in what is otherwise a lacklustre election campaign, one in which all the political parties could come up with was a long list of gifts to hide their deficiencies of foresight.
And it is a bad idea, one that immediately led to a partial u-turn (more about that later) after the employers’ bodies – as well as many others with some common sense – were quick to denounce it as going against human rights and was set to upset the balance in the employment world.
We’re talking about Labour’s idea of mandatory union membership for all workers.
Proposal number 193 of the PL’s manifesto – presented to the public in the second half of the campaign, one wonders why it took the party so long – said that the PL “agreed with the principle” that all employees should be members of a union. “We will start a discussion with the social partners to implement this measure,” Labour said, referring to its post-election intentions.
The unions were probably happy about this, given that having such a situation would increase their income via forced membership, apart from giving them more power in their deals with employers.
But the social partners also include employers, whose reaction was, predictably, not one of welcome. For one thing, Malta Employers Association director general Joseph Farrugia said, it goes against the ILO Convention, the United Nations Charter for Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, apart from the Maltese Constitution. Malta should not be part of the short list of countries where this kind of membership was enforced, he said, mentioning China, Iraq, Iran, Laos, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
Farrugia went as far as saying that Labour’s idea of mandatory membership, should it become law, will be challenged at international level.
The implementation of such a proposal would therefore be another black spot next to Malta’s name, after it became the first European country to be grey-listed by the Financial Action Task Force, having a prime minister given the title of man of the year in organised crime and corruption, and a minister who was the only European government member revealed to have opened a company in Panama. Not to mention the golden passports scheme, which the government persists in pushing in spite of all the reprimands from European institutions, and the femicide law which, as presented hastily before Parliament earlier this year, has been described as discriminatory by top judges and lawyers.
The backlash on the idea of mandatory union membership put the Labour Party in retreat, with Prime Minister Robert Abela, Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne and Finance Minister Clyde Caruana trying hard to contain the damage that it caused.
The difference was that, whereas Fearne and Caruana were pretty clear in saying that no-one will be forced to join a union, Abela was less forthcoming, saying simply that there will be a discussion. With Abela maintaining the reins of the country, the risk that the next Labour government will push for mandatory union membership remains.
This is why the u-turn is incomplete, also because the proposal is still part of the PL’s manifesto.
It has not been officially withdrawn, which means that the PL still intends to look into it once the election is over. It is playing it down before the people vote but, by keeping this proposal in the manifesto, in the next legislature it can always argue that the people voted in its favour.
There are still a few days left before the election campaign comes to an end, and the Prime Minister has many activities lined up until Thursday. So he has ample chance to make it clear, without needing to be prompted by a question, to say that the PL has no intention of pursuing the matter.
That the Nationalist Party had included a similar idea in its pre-budget document last year is of no comfort at all, although it must be said that the PN does not speak about it in its electoral programme. Opposition Leader Bernard Grech described the PL’s proposal as being unacceptable.
What is completely wrong is that the PL manifesto says Labour “agrees with the principle” of mandatory union membership. For a political party to be in line with an idea that goes against human rights – freedom of association also means the freedom not to be associated with anyone – is not something that the Labour Party should be proud of.
The Labour Party would do well to withdraw that proposal before the election, admitting it has made a mistake. If it does not have the humility to do so, it should at least refrain from even opening discussions about it after the election.
If it remains stubborn and insists on trying, it should expect a big battle, one that will be embarrassing.