local news

How does the GWU deputy secretary general Mario Cutajar feel about these two descriptions of himself, I wonder?

He smiles.

"Only MaltaToday has described me as the brains of the union," he says. "But on a serious note, we all work collectively here. That's what it's all about."

And does he think of himself as a radical?

"It certainly isn't a term that annoys me," he replies. "I consider myself as a radical for the simple reason that I'm not happy with the establishment. Workers are not given their due importance in society. If you consider that being a radical, then yes, I am one."

Mr Cutajar describes the interest he developed in trade unionism as a natural progression in his career.

"I started being active in the GWU in 1976, when I first joined the civil service and became the shop steward there," he says. "In 1988 there was a vacancy here for junior secretary in the public services section and I was elected to the post. I have been here since."

The GWU has been accused of failing to move with the times, and not adapting to changes in the market. It is a criticism that Mr Cutajar strongly rebukes, I find.

ëThe GWU has always moved with the times, we are very conscious of the need to move forward; common sense tells you that if you don't, you will move backwards," he says. "We recognise that for jobs to be sustained, competitiveness is essential and we accept that there's no job for life.

"Having said that, if you leave the scenario in the hands of the employers they would certainly opt for a ëhire and fire' approach, which would be against our principles. So we believe the answer is social partnership and dialogue between the two sides and that is something we have always advocated."

I cannot help asking Mr Cutajar whether the GWU accepts that European Union membership would offer a good deal for the workers in this respect. After all, I point out, all the other unions in Europe have pronounced themselves in favour of the EU.

"There is always a story behind the story, so to speak," he replies. "For example, the British trade unionists were initially against EU membership when Britain applied. But they changed their view when Thatcher was in power and workers' rights were consequently trodden upon.

"You have to remember that at the time, Jacques Delors, a strong Socialist, was President of the Commission and EU membership appeared to be the unions' only salvation, so they were convinced to take that path."

Mr Cutajar stresses that he views the situation in Malta as very different.

"We have had many rights for a long time," he says. "For example, the British workers gained the minimum wage only last year, whereas we have had it since the early 1970s.

"Granted, the EU probably has some of the best health and safety regulations in the world. But do we have to comply totally with the Acquis Communitaire to gain them? Why should we take on all the economic burdens to do things for Malta? Can't we fight for these things ourselves? After all, surely that is what trade unionism is all about."

He explains that this was why the GWU's reports focused on employment.

"After all, jobs are the crux of everything, they are what determine the standard of living of the population," he says. "What are rights without jobs?"

But what about the argument that EU membership is likely to see such measures implemented quicker, I ask him.

"Have you been to Athens?" he asks with a smile. "It is one of the most polluted cities in the world and Greece is one of the most polluted in the EU. It is a mistake to rely on foreign intervention to get things moving. We can do things for ourselves."

So does he reject the accusations that the GWU's anti-EU stand was just an example of towing the Labour party's line?

Mr Cutajar smiles.

"We have been accused of doing that since 1943, we have become immune to it. But I can tell you that it is definitely not true," he answers. "I would also put it to you that if we made our decisions because we were towing the MLP line, then what about the other organisations that have made their decisions without making studies or issuing reports? Does that mean they are towing the Nationalist party line?"

But would he admit that the GWU's relations with the MLP and Alfred Sant in particular have warmed again after a cold period?

"It's not a matter of things remaining constant or thawing," he replies. "The fact is that sometimes we're not in agreement with the MLP, and that's normal. The funny thing is that at the time of the ëCold War', as it was called, we were praised in the press. Once relations became warmer, we were seen as towing the Labour party line. It's absurd. We just carry on with our work, believing that's the best thing to do."

In line with the changing role of unions, I cannot help asking Mario Cutajar whether the old trade union heroes are now icons of another era, of times gone by. Are the days of the Arthur Scargills over, I ask?

"Arthur Scargill? Personally, I would have named James Larkin," he answers with a laugh. "Seriously, I think Scargill had a difficult time because Thatcher was out to get the unions. During the Falklands, Argentina was the enemy without, and then, when Britain came out victorious, she turned to the enemy within and that was the unions. But yes, some mistakes were made, admittedly, and they have taught us a lesson."

And has the GWU made mistakes, I ask.

"Of course, we're human, after all," he answers. "For example, the Phoenicia. That is not to say that its closure was due to our mistakes, but we made mistakes over the issue and that definitely taught us some lessons."

I ask him whether, with hindsight, he views the action at Malta International Airport as one of the GWU's mistakes - wasn't it disproportionate to the dispute which was, surely, between two unions.

But he defends the action staunchly.

"The dispute wasn't between two unions, it was a dispute with the management," he answers. "We had a situation at MIA whereby the majority of workers were GWU members and the government didn't want to negotiate with us, so the issue was with the management, not with another union.

"It is also important to remember that the MIA dispute couldn't be taken by itself, we were also dealing with the Kalaxlokk issue at the time, which was challenging the very basics of trade unionism."

Staying with controversial issues, I ask Mr Cutajar about the GWU's decision to advise its members to work on the La Salle. Did the union back down to the government, I ask.

"That wasn't what happened, we simply decided that it was the best thing to do for all concerned, and our decision was praised on all sides," he answers. "But we said clearly that although our members would work on this ship, they would not do so on another unless the Constitution issue is resolved and it must be resolved in Parliament."

Mr Cutajar also believes that the government played on public opinion at the time.

"They were in the middle of a local council election campaign and there could have been a repetition of the Thatcherite years," he says, adding, with a smile: "But we wouldn't have fallen for that. We have too much experience."

And what about the criticism of the GWU's national petition, I ask. Does he believe the government was just trying to undermine the union's credibility?

"If we said there were 79,000, signatures, then there were 79,000," he answers. "Yes, they tried to get at the union and I was very sceptical of their accusations, since I don't think it's humanly possible for the government to count all the signatures in just a few hours.

"The other point to consider is that when there was another petition organised by Bay Street, the government immediately slammed it, saying it was illegal. This makes me think that the government's aim is simply to hit out at anyone who doesn't agree with its ideas, although I'm glad that since our national petition, many others have followed suit."

So he doesn't think the La Salle controversy or the petition issue dented the GWU's credibility?

"We conduct surveys regularly and the recent findings all tell us that our credibility looks healthy," he replies. "Even the fact that we have a recognisable percentage of PN supporters - 20% - is a sign of our credibility."

I ask Mr Cutajar what the GWU's primary concerns are at present. His answers are immediate: "The lack of investment and too much talk about Europe," he answers. "It's becoming an absurdity. Everything is directed towards the EU, with the result that our own problems are being neglected."

And the GWU's future?

"Our principles remain the same, social justice, that's why we're here," he says.

So does this belief in social justice mean that Mr Cutajar understood why Mintoff decided to vote against the former government on the increases in the power tariffs, I ask.

"I cannot really sympathise with that line of action," he answers." I wouldn't be happy with someone from our hierarchy going out publicly against the GWU. I simply wouldn't like that."

So he doesn't believe that the proposed increases to tariffs went against the principles of social justice?

"Granted, a lot was made of social conscience then," he answers. "But what about social conscience now? Are we being run by a government with a social conscience? I don't think so. The problem is that these phrases become buzzwords and gimmicks."

He adds that the GWU's other priority is to ensure it has a vision of what kind of society the union is striving for.

"We are not simply about the workplace - we are a social movement," he says. "And this has been a principle that the GWU has stood by since it was formed in 1943."