The Sea Malta shipwreck

TONY ZARB’s failure to secure the jobs of seafarers in the privatisation of Sea Malta, exposed the GWU to a fundamental weakness in the face of divide and rule tactics

Tony Zarb has no qualms about the shipwrecked Sea Malta deal, submerged last Wednesday, leaving 144 workers jobless. He simply says that he has tried everything possible to save their jobs, even at the cost of being accused of committing a U-turn in the last days, when he decided to accept the Sea Malta deal, unconditionally.
In so doing, Zarb earned the scorn of the land based workers who blamed him for not reaching an agreement before Grimaldi’s deadline, and the rebuke of the seafarers who mutinied when the Union surrendered to Grimaldi’s terms at the eleventh hour.
It was the seafarers’ mutiny which ultimately led to the shipwreck of Sea Malta.
But it was Zarb who ultimately had to face the heavy blows of Austin Gatt, an astute political boxer who fares better confronting gladiators like Zarb than gallant ladies like Marlene Mizzi.
Still, the brawny militant does not give the impression that he is licking his wounds two days after the Sea Malta debacle. “I am feeling good, very good,” is his reply when asked on his state of mind. Zarb won’t give any impression of weakness, despite the visible strain of marathon meetings involving whole days and sleepless nights during which he tried to persuade seafarers to accept the deal. Given the chance to go back in time, Zarb would not have done anything different.
“I have no qualms, because I did everything I could to save the jobs. For weeks we did everything to persuade the workers to arrive at a solution.”
Questions still hang over the reason why Zarb did not resolve the whole issue by calling for a vote in which both seafarers and land based workers participated on a one man one vote basis. According to him, this was not an option because the three different categories of workers in Sea Malta where covered by three separate collective agreements: two agreements covering two categories of seamen and another covering land based workers.
“The conditions of these workers were different and we could not simply lump the workers together.” Zarb explains this was also not an option because the government’s promise of alternative employment for the land based workers was conditional on the seafarers accepting the agreement. “In so doing it was the government which had burdened the seafarers with the responsibility to accept or refuse the agreement and thus decide on the future of their land based colleges. It was the government who had left upon the seafarers to decide for their land based colleagues. In the circumstances it made no sense to expect land based workers to decide on this issue, as it was the seafarers who ultimately had to change their working conditions according to the conditions offered by Grimaldi.”
But back in August, in the midst of protests against the government’s so-called guillotine policy, the General Workers Union could not object when Austin Gatt promised to secure the jobs of the land based workers. But seafarers contend that the Union should not have accepted this in the first place, since it would mean accepting the government’s divide and rule tactic.
Zarb contends that it was positive the livelihood of land based workers was secured but he also contends that the GWU had nothing to do with the decision to make this conditional on the seamen accepting the agreement. “The blame for burdening the seamen with this added responsibility fell squarely on the government.”
But after resisting the conditions offered to seamen for the past months, the GWU ended up accepting the conditions offered by Grimaldi. But Zarb insists that the union had committed no U-turn. “Doing our best to save jobs is not a U-turn. After weeks of trying to convince the seafarers to accept the agreement, we had to accept Grimaldi’s conditions in order to save everybody’s job.”
Zarb admits that he had changed the union’s position without consulting with the seafarers. Zarb explains that only a week ago the seamen had voted against a GWU proposal to accept Grimaldi’s terms. In this vote 28 had voted against the union’s position, 14 had voted in favour and four had abstained. On the very next day the GWU had written to these workers encouraging them to reconsider their position but only three workers informed the union that they were changing their position.
“In the light of these circumstances, we took a decision to accept the terms offered by Grimaldi despite the opposition of the seafarers, as we did not want to risk the employment of all Sea Malta workers.”
But if the GWU cared so much for the jobs of these workers, why did it not reverse its position two weeks earlier before the November 30 deadline? Zarb says the GWU faced a catch-22 situation in which jobs would have been lost in either case. Had the union backed the seamen right up towards the end, Grimaldi would have backed off and Gatt would have proceeded with the liquidation of Sea Malta. But had the union ignored the seamen before the deadline, they had the power to blow up the agreement themselves. The only option for Zarb was to play for time, hoping that the seamen would eventually heed his advice.
“Had we taken this decision at that stage, we would still have ended in the same situation we are in today. We were simply playing for time to be able to convince these workers. Had we taken the decision to move forward without their approval, the seamen would have written the same letter to disassociate themselves from our position, thus putting an end to any agreement two weeks before.”
Zarb acknowledges that throughout the negotiations Grimaldi was in a stronger position than the union because the government had strengthened his position by threatening to sack workers if an agreement was not reached.
“I tried to convince them, but I failed,” Zarb admits. His failure in convincing these workers to follow his advice could be interpreted as a sign that his leadership in the union is in crisis. But Zarb disagrees that his leadership skills are to blame. “I tried but when a group of people persists in saying no, it is futile to keep on saying yes. When we realised that everybody’s job was at risk and we tried to move forward despite the seafarers’ opposition, on the very last day when Grimaldi arrived to Malta he was confronted with that letter.”
There were reports in the media that members of the committee representing the seafarers stood to benefit from generous termination benefits in the case of the company’s liquidation. Was this the real reason why seafarers had sabotaged the agreement?
Zarb admits that this could have been the case in some cases but he also points out that the majority of seafarers on the committee had voted in favour of signing the agreement with Grimaldi.
Irrespective of the motivations animating the two categories of workers at Sea Malta, there was little sign of the sense of solidarity preached by trade union leaders like Zarb. The lack of solidarity shown by the workers towards each other in this case exposes the General Workers Union to a fundamental weakness in the face of divide and rule tactics. “The Union was caught between two groups of workers. We put ourselves in between, trying to save jobs. Our sole concern was protecting the jobs of those workers willing to work.”
In the next months the General Workers Union will be facing an uphill struggle as the government is set to privatize or restructure a number of industries like Maltacom and Enemalta. The loss of 144 jobs at Sea Malta could weaken the union’s position while the government could be encouraged to use heavy handed tactics to break the union’s resistance. Was Sea Malta a dress rehearsal for the coming showdown?
“Let’s see, only time will tell,” answers Zarb.
Can workers at Maltacom, Enemalta and Water Services Corporation have the same trust in Tony Zarb after what happened in Sea Malta? Zarb answers by asking another question. “Are you saying that the government has made this move to scare other workers?”
Definitely the Sea Malta experience has not stopped Tony Zarb from calling workers for another show of strength next Thursday. Zarb explains that the union will be protesting against the government’s arrogance and the burdens imposed on workers. But doesn’t that make him feel awkward: speaking about job losses after his failure to secure jobs at Sea Malta?
“It is the government and not us who is responsible for the job losses at Sea Malta. It was the government who decided to close Sea Malta and not the union. Grimaldi himself said that we were not responsible for these job losses.”
Surely Grimaldi was not blaming Gatt for these job losses. According to Zarb, Grimaldi simply blamed the seafarers for the final breakdown.
The privatisation of Sea Malta was the first challenge facing Zarb following the sweeping victory of the militant camp in the last GWU’s congress. Zarb insists that despite what happened at Sea Malta his leadership in the union is as strong as ever and he blames the same people who tried to remove him from the GWU’s helm for trying to give the impression that his hold on the union has been weakened in the aftermath of the closure of Sea Malta. “The same people who are trying to undermine me now are the same people who orchestrated a campaign to unseat me before the GWU’s congress. I am referring to the Nationalists and their allies who are determined to weaken the General Workers Union in order to give the government a blank cheque to do whatever it likes.”
But more independent critics might point out that Zarb is giving the Nationalists a helping hand by alienating middle of the road voters annoyed by his antics, like protests on the eve of CHOGM. Is Zarb simply giving the Nationalists more rope to hang him with?
Zarb defends his decision to protest during CHOGM week by saying that this is a normal thing in western democracies – citing the latest protests in Barcelona during the EU summit. “As soon as Lawrence Gonzi set foot in Barcelona, the first thing he saw was a protest,” referring to ETUC protests held before every EU summit.
But normally such protests take place during summits in which decisions effecting workers are taken. Since no such decisions where taken during CHOGM, why did the GWU risk alienating a section of the public who perceived them as spoilsports? “The union’s aim was not to protest against CHOGM but to show delegates that the reality in Malta is very different from that presented to them by the government.”
Zarb recognised that most delegates came from countries where workers are worse off than the Maltese, but he insisted that the message was mostly directed to leaders coming from the more affluent UK, Cyprus, Canada and Australia. Despite criticism that his emphasis on militancy could turn off the middle classes, Zarb insists that the choice in favour of militancy made by delegates in the GWU’s congress is irreversible.
“How can we stop being militant now, when delegates have chosen us for being militant? Was that not a democratic choice? The delegates even approved a motion calling on the government not to put extra burdens on workers. The government did the very opposite in the last budget. Are we not obliged to respect democratic choices?” asks Zarb.
For the past weeks pro-government commentators have harped on a part of Zarb’s pre-CHOGM speech in which he augured that the government will fall. “I simply declare that I will not do anything anti-democratic to bring about the government’s downfall,” Zarb says.
Referring to the next election Zarb insists that “it will be the people who will bring this government down when the time comes.”
But couldn’t Zarb simply avoid giving the Nationalists more ammunition by being more careful in his choice of words? “There were many other instances when politicians were not careful in their choice of words. But it suits them to attack me.”
According to the latest rumours in political circles, the choices made by Tony Zarb on CHOGM and Sea Malta were not to Alfred Sant’s liking. Zarb denies that he was rebuked by anyone from the MLP. But he also expressed his surprise that the same people who always criticised him for being a Labour stooge are now claiming that there is a rift between the GWU and the MLP.
“All I can say is that we have only acted on the basis of our own convictions and we will keep on going in the same path.”
Zarb knows that the government is looking for a final showdown with the General Workers’ Union, but armed with his own convictions he won’t change tack even at the cost of giving the government the rallying cry it has lacked since Malta joined the European Union.