People• 8 June 2003

King of the proles

GWU Secretary-General Tony Zarb is well aware of the country’s problems, but prefers waiting for Government to take the first steps. MATTHEW VELLA speaks to the man at the helm of the nation’s largest trade union

Things could be better for the country. That is what everyone thinks fresh out of the elections, and especially as we prepare for our European saunter. Things could be better.

For Tony Zarb, at the helm of the General Workers Union since 1998, the union’s relationship with the Nationalist government encountered great difficulties, especially following Nationalist re-election in 1998, when he led union members in defiant resistance against the PN’s budget proposals for years in a row, hand open, a screeching lisp calling out "enough is enough," Issa Daqshekk.

Now that EU accession has been secured, a different MLP leadership has been set in place, and there are new national challenges to look forward to, will the GWU embark on a different relationship with the Nationalist government?

"You always have to analyse the circumstances in which we find ourselves. First of all, we prefer to see consultation, discussion and understanding taking place at the debating table. This is the best road for everyone.

"In the coming years, the GWU will be working in this manner. But it doesn’t depend solely on the GWU. You have to see the other side of the coin. You have to see what the other side is going to do, and how it will react.

"If the other side doesn’t leave you any space to discuss just solutions, the union will resort to the law and to its rights to strike and demonstrate. For us, the word ‘militancy’ does not mean going out in the streets to cause trouble. Sometimes this word evokes outrage. For us it means remaining till the end to fight for workers’ rights and their interests. This is the GWU’s maxim."

Zarb’s first saunter into the world of trade unionism came in 1981, when he organised the workers at the Wrangler jeans factory, back then working as a cutting operator. He was a member of the union’s National Council in 1982 when he furthered his studies in trade unionism in Denmark.

From then onwards, it was a climb to the top, when he was elected deputy secretary-general in 1996, and two years later secretary-general.

It will be interesting now to see how the GWU will consolidate its relationship with the Nationalist government in the coming years. It will be meeting Minister Austin Gatt most of the times, as minister for investments, rather than Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

"I think that every time we spoke with Minister Gonzi, despite not having agreed on everything sometimes, we have always tried to listen to each other and find the best solutions. Hopefully, we will keep on taking this direction.

"Now we will have to start dealing mainly with Minister Austin Gatt, whose portfolio includes most of the government entities. We have only met Dr Gatt a few times, when we met with all our section secretaries.

"His intentions clearly show he would like to have ongoing discussion and consultation with the GWU. One of the most important developments in our relationship has been the news that discussions on collective agreements will now start including him, the company and the director of finance.

"Before we would have to meet the Minister and the director of finance separately, and this used to cause bigger problems since we would have to start talks all over again with another representative of the government."

Social security and competitiveness, buzzwords which will be tracing every single press release from the social partners and MCESD, is also high on the GWU’s agenda.

Talking about pensions however, Zarb says the union will be waiting for Government to give first directions on the issue: "Since it was the first to underline the problematic nature of this issue, we are expecting it to present to us with its proposals first, and then commence discussions."

The GWU was the only organisation to present a report on the matter to the National Welfare Commission, and is certainly ready to contribute to the debate: "What is happening to the government right now is the same as in the rest of Europe, particularly in France, Italy and Austria. In their case, it seems the governments have been too hard-headed, leaving workers no option but to take to the streets and strike."

It is clear that Zarb will not be happy with any attempts to have the retirement age increased: "Talking about increasing the pensionable age to 65 has to include greater consideration for workers. We have to see in which workplaces workers can keep on working until 65 years of age. This is not possible for every occupation.

"Government is also giving mixed signals here. It offers its workers early retirement schemes in the downsizing of operations, and then we end up asking for an increased retirement age. We have to thread carefully and analyse the situation correctly.

"We also have to see what is happening in the private sector. The manufacturing sector prefers to have younger workers, making it very hard for workers over 45 years of age to find work. These three instances are facts.

"Raising the pensionable age is not the only solution. There are diverse solutions. For example, we need to have more women working. But we also have to make certain initiatives and incentives for them to go out to work. Many of them look at it as a worthless endeavour because they expect low wages, and still have to pay taxes at the end of the day.

"There are also ideas to have part of the social security contribution reduced to have the option of investing in a private pension. At the same time this will involve a reduction in government income. Is this affordable for the state? We have to look at this very carefully.

"We also have to reform the system in which we have been pooling the social security contributions. Our pension fund was never a dedicated fund. We ask if the time has come to have the social partners administer a dedicated pensions fund. These and others are the solutions we also have to look at, as well as trying to see what government is reading into the issue."

Zarb offers ideas, but a clear route is not laid out. Government will have to make the first steps before the union is committed. It smacks of wait-and-see, a typical syndrome of the procrastinating style of so many of our administrations. It is obviously a tricky situation for a union: public sector wages and social service expenditure form the bulk of public spending. Cutting down will deliver a blow to workers all over the island.

"For long we had been saying: our administrations have to pay attention to the way they spend their money. Now we are in a position where we have to choose and find a solution for the problems of the country. We don’t expect ourselves to accept reductions in public sector wages and social services. And these facts are going to put us in a difficult position."

You have to look at whole scenario, Zarb says, and knows that a battle is looming ahead. He will not be budging when it will come to the crunch. It will be obvious to see the whole nation carrying the burden. But when it comes to the GWU, is the choice between their membership and the national interest, or are both the same thing?

"Certainly, we will not be allowing the workers to carry the burden of these reforms. Are we expected to carry the burden now? I don’t think it will be only the GWU that will be crucified. What the GWU has to see is how it will defend workers’ rights within the European Union. As we can see in France, Italy and Austria, we are seeing workers carrying the burdens of their governments’ maladministration.

"Moreover, we have to take stock of our competitiveness. We have to see where Malta is the strongest, and realise the differences between us and those Eastern European countries, and these include expensive transport costs which these countries do not have when trading with Western Europe. We need to investigate Malta’s potential to compete with these countries and maintain competitiveness."

Discussion turns to the ailing dockyards, where restructuring is expected to see the Yards go their own way by 2008, commercially viable, state subsidy-free and hopefully, a profitable monolith for the 1,400 workers that will be left by that time:

"Vis-à-vis the EU, the government has not yet been clear over what has been negotiated. The ‘docks’ workforce has to be decreased to 1,400 from 2,700. We know that around 90 to 100 workers retire every year from the ‘docks, however the average age of ‘yards workers is 45, quiet a high mean age. We have to now see what kind of input, through the apprenticeship of young people, we can offer to the Yards.

"As a union we want to see how we can save the shipyards and turn them into a viable entity. The GWU would be the happiest to see the Yards operating without state subsidies. If Government has in mind to drastically reduce the workforce at the Yards, restructuring will be hard to achieve by 2008."

Zarb has doubts about what profits have been reeled in from the works on American warships:

"I have serious doubts whether we made any profits on the USS LaSalle. And if we have made a loss on those ships, we have ended up subsidising them! We have to see the situation we are in. I don’t think we have to reduce the potential of our workforce at ‘Yards and channel solely into military vessels. We have to diversify their potential. The superyachts initiative was a good idea.

"However, we have a government that forgoes the work the ‘Yards workers can offer, such as on structural ironworks, and gives it to the private sector. Isn’t it in every government’s interest to have the shipyards viable by utilising its workers?"

Again, as we have more time to dream, fresh out of these elections, it is wondered whether Zarb, whose union today is more detached from the MLP than ever before, could formally endorse the EU:

"The GWU was the first organisation to call for a referendum to decide any question of membership with the EU. We accepted that result, and we accepted the electoral result. Does this mean we shall be changing our principles with regards the EU?

"No, we always said that in the circumstances we find ourselves in, we don’t agree with EU membership. Now we are learning what a complex institution this is. And despite our opposition, we have never detached ourselves from the European world of trade-unionism. The GWU is extremely active within the European dimension and we shall continue to work together with the European Trade Union Confederation."