We boast about the freedom of speech in all sectors but everyone knows that there is still a red line on the perceived freedom to give our opinion, our criticism and our dissent. This occurs in all workplaces including the education sector. The said red line is however not cast in stone but depends on the management and on the employee. Authoritarian management does not give space to any criticism. Other management styles may tolerate it up to a certain level.

Some employees are allowed to voice their opinions, within limits and without consequences. Others are shunned from the start from doing so. Crossing the line with management has its consequences on employees. Management may try to ridicule you, to exclude you, to portray you as an outfit, to get your colleagues against you and tens of other strategies. Ultimately, management can fire you or may create the conditions so that dismissal happens 'naturally'.

We hear repeated phrases from management like "we value your opinion", together with the corresponding phrase "we are one family".  The latter is perhaps the most powerful of all messages and the one which carries consequences. Omerta' is still valued in families and the portrayal of a workplace as a family emulates the culture of silence practiced in families.

In this scenario, the phrase "we value your opinion" takes a new meaning. Management may value the opinion of employees as long as opinions are shared within the walls of the office, or at most within the institution. In this scenario, the sharing of opinions outside the organisation is in breach of the omerta' principle. This is felt continuously in educational institutions. Perhaps "we are a family" is felt more in smaller educational institutions such as in non-state schools. However, few months ago we had a circular issued by the Education Ministry, limiting the sharing of opinion of educators outside educational institutions.  The message is amply clear.

This is in stark contrast with the values that educators are supposed to be sharing with students, where opinion sharing is valued. We teach history and recall the revolutionaries in our country and elsewhere who brought about changes in society. We teach social studies where we explain the effects of protests and their absence in society. We teach literature where we present major dissent in society as expressed in writing.

We do the same in a number of subjects in formal and informal education. We discuss with students, very often engaging in mature dialogue about a number of themes without half-truths and without the pressure to conform and to please. And whilst we are raising future citizens who value opinion sharing, we leave classrooms facing workplace realities which contrast with our teaching.  

Acting is not confined to performing arts. Workplaces are ripe with acts that portray the perceived 'model employee' as the employee to emulate. The 'model employee' is placed under the spotlight by management for 'all to see and to admire'. To the management they are the perfection. To employees they are the conformists, the lackeys, the spies and the traitors. Yet the copy-cat effect works very well and other employees may emulate the 'model employee' to be in the good books of management. On the other hand, the 'bad employee' is also placed under the spotlight of management so that other employees are well aware about the consequence of their behaviour. The non-conformists, the ones who dissent, who criticize, who speak up and who share their opinion are projected very badly by management. An ambience of fear ensures that no other employees emulate the behaviour of the 'bad employee'.  

In this scenario and in conformity with the principles of social justice as embraced by trade unions, we need to continue to speak up, we need to continue to show dissent and we need to continue to share our opinions. In adverse conditions, we need to do all this louder and louder for everyone to hear us and to listen to us.

Marco Bonnici is President of the Malta Union of Teachers