|
The future of the General Workers’ Union, rightly or wrongly, seems to be on everyone’s lips. That this could be crunch time for the union is more than a fair comment. Is the union in meltdown or is this, as the union would have us all believe, business as usual?
The union is going through a turbulent period. A fast sequence of events has not only weakened its strength but put into question its very credibility. This newspaper had, weeks ago, editorially described the dismissal of Josephine Attard Sultana and Francis Busutil, as a grave mistake. This error has been magnified by the resignations of the port workers’ foremen who quit the GWU and joined the UHM, the resignations of section secretaries Manuel Zammit and Karmenu Vella and the latest mass exodus of port workers who have now formed a separate union.
These developments have given credence to the well held view that a purge is in progress.
This purge goes against the very ethos of what a union should represent. The diverse nature of the members represented within the GWU makes it almost imperative that conflicts arise but as much as these differences create problems, over the years they have proved to the union’s very strength on the national stage.
Reducing the union to a battlefield of moderates and militants is a mistake. It has pnly helped to stifle diversity. Regrettably, and with dire consequences, this diabolical behaviour of the Union including the dismissal of its own members, begs the question about what does this union now stand for?
Workers are asking how their own union has acted like the most brutal of employers. They remain shocked and until the dust settles the effect on the union’s credibility is bound to further diminish in the eyes of the ordinary card holding union member.
The only way that this matter can be addressed is by the leaders of the union putting themselves up for a vote of confidence. This is the democratic way forward and until this happens the leadership will be devoid of any sense of moral and legitimate authority to lead the union.
A general conference must be called immediately and a vote taken. If reconfirmed they will have been given full approval to carry on representing the union but if in the negative the leadership must resign forthwith. There can be no other way forward. Calls for the leaders to resign prior to putting their jobs on the line are premature. Resignations should only follow if and after a negative vote.
In the absence of a vote of approval, suspicions will grow that the leadership are not placing the interests of the union before their own narrow vested interests and protecting their job employment. The union belongs to its members and not to the few persons calling the shots at the top. Its behaviour is leading to institutional paralysis. The recently signed declaration by section leaders may do little to dissipate the feeling of a union in meltdown.
Any general conference would have to question whether legitimising the current leadership is in the long-term interests of the union. The current leadership has made a number of strategic errors. It was wrong to take a stand against Malta’s entry into Europe, when the majority of internal reports commissioned by the union itself spoke favourably of the EU.
The leadership has also taken a very immature stand in describing the rebels within its fold as Nationalists. Knowing full well that such a label is prone to condition the predominantly Labourite membership base against dissenting opinions, the current leadership has massaged that message to the full. As a result, Manuel Micallef, Manuel Zammit, Josephine Attard Sultana and Karmenu Vella have suddenly become Nationalist stooges. It is a ridiculous situation.
But the mayhem at the union is also creating problems for the Labour Party. There is too much affinity between both organisations, confirmed with Alfred Sant’s declaration that the GWU is a privileged organisation for the Labour Party.
The result of such affinity is that a divided union is unfortunately also damaging the Labour Party. To make matters worse there have been little rumblings from within Labour’s ranks to distance themselves from the union’s mayhem and this has only cemented perceptions that there is no difference between both organisations.
But the worst thing of all is the unfortunate loss of valid people in the trade union scene if the likes of Manuel Zammit and Co. decide to call it a day. This is a small country with limited resources. Simply disposing of human resources is not only wasteful but damaging to the collective family of trade unionism.
|
