The Malta Independent
Problems which were allowed to accumulate over a long period of time can never have easy, quick or simple solutions. Successful change management ensures that problems are avoided rather than addressed, on clear evidence that prevention is less painful than cure even where the cure is correct and timely, let alone where it is belated and inappropriate.
The resistance to change from the Unions side is predictable and understandable. They have seen it before in State controlled organisation where after a lot of big talk about change through bullying tactics, the State backs down under grass-roots pressure to organise some expensive fudge which pretends to deliver change whilst essentially preserving the status quo.
In a small country where everybody knows everybody else, where voters that will be negatively effected by the proposed changes can easily bring pressure to bear on their politicians, and where members` pressure on their Union and competition between Unions for membership, make it difficult for Union leaders to be pragmatic about the changes desired by management, the Unions` reaction can hardly be expected to be anything but total resistance.
In Air Malta`s case the issue is compounded by the fact that many of their corporate ailments are sourced from past strategic decisions related to huge investments in wrong configuration unsuitable for their core needs and a large investment in an Italian airline subsidiary which never really took off.
The perception that the workers are being made to carry the burden of management `strategic mistakes whilst management is not `carrying its fair share of the adjustment pain, especially with the engagement of an expatriate CEO with a remuneration package totally out of line with Maltese standards, can only re-inforce the unions in their rigidity to refuse change. While paying lip-service to the need for change they make their readiness to implement it so conditional as to make it impossible.
All the indications are that the negotiations going on are unlikely to lead to a fair resolution of the crisis and unless there emerges from the negotiating table a source of leadership capable of twinning change with equity and fairness, we risk industrial strife which could damage the wider tourist industry when it needs support rather than obstruction.
And when I say equitable and fair solutions I mean that it has to be fair not only on the management and the employees but it has also to be fair on the shareholders, i.e. on you and me who as private citizens paying taxes to the State deserve to be given value for whatever money the State has invested and means to invest in Air Malta.
Which forces me to conclude that the negotiations are being conducted with wrong tactics. Giving employees an assurance that there will be no redundancies is neither conducive to acceptance of change nor is it economically sensible.
If Air Malta can and should be doing much more with much less resources, why should they continue to waste resources through no redundancy guarantees? Why should employees at state organisations enjoy guarantees that their brothers and sisters in the private sector cannot enjoy? Where is the social justice if we are going to leave one social sector over-protected and another totally unprotected?
Which leads me to conclude that it is wrong tactics to try to solve Air Malta`s problems in isolation. We need to see the much larger picture. We need to create a mechanism where employers, public or private, who have to conduct Air Malta type re-organisations to save their business from financial collapse, will have the facility to place their excess manpower in a state-sponsored re-training scheme. Such scheme will give redundant employees an opportunity to find alternative employment through acquisition of new skills, whilst remaining employees accept a freeze in their pay plus efficiency changes to ensure that their employer can survive and offer back, through sustainable growth, a productive job to those that had to be shed out to the State sponsored re-training scheme.
By taking a wider view of the problem we can put on the negotiating table the missing equity component which is currently leading employees to ask with honesty and conviction ` why me`? Why are others in central government and state organisations not subject to market competition pressures like Air Malta, exempted from re-structuring when in fact they could be costing the taxpayer much more and contributing much less?
Problems which were allowed to accumulate over a long period of time can never have easy, quick or simple solutions. Successful change management ensures that problems are avoided rather than addressed, on clear evidence that prevention is less painful than cure even where the cure is correct and timely, let alone where it is belated and inappropriate.
The resistance to change from the Unions side is predictable and understandable. They have seen it before in State controlled organisation where after a lot of big talk about change through bullying tactics, the State backs down under grass-roots pressure to organise some expensive fudge which pretends to deliver change whilst essentially preserving the status quo.
In a small country where everybody knows everybody else, where voters that will be negatively effected by the proposed changes can easily bring pressure to bear on their politicians, and where members` pressure on their Union and competition between Unions for membership, make it difficult for Union leaders to be pragmatic about the changes desired by management, the Unions` reaction can hardly be expected to be anything but total resistance.
In Air Malta`s case the issue is compounded by the fact that many of their corporate ailments are sourced from past strategic decisions related to huge investments in wrong configuration unsuitable for their core needs and a large investment in an Italian airline subsidiary which never really took off.
The perception that the workers are being made to carry the burden of management `strategic mistakes whilst management is not `carrying its fair share of the adjustment pain, especially with the engagement of an expatriate CEO with a remuneration package totally out of line with Maltese standards, can only re-inforce the unions in their rigidity to refuse change. While paying lip-service to the need for change they make their readiness to implement it so conditional as to make it impossible.
All the indications are that the negotiations going on are unlikely to lead to a fair resolution of the crisis and unless there emerges from the negotiating table a source of leadership capable of twinning change with equity and fairness, we risk industrial strife which could damage the wider tourist industry when it needs support rather than obstruction.
And when I say equitable and fair solutions I mean that it has to be fair not only on the management and the employees but it has also to be fair on the shareholders, i.e. on you and me who as private citizens paying taxes to the State deserve to be given value for whatever money the State has invested and means to invest in Air Malta.
Which forces me to conclude that the negotiations are being conducted with wrong tactics. Giving employees an assurance that there will be no redundancies is neither conducive to acceptance of change nor is it economically sensible.
If Air Malta can and should be doing much more with much less resources, why should they continue to waste resources through no redundancy guarantees? Why should employees at state organisations enjoy guarantees that their brothers and sisters in the private sector cannot enjoy? Where is the social justice if we are going to leave one social sector over-protected and another totally unprotected?
Which leads me to conclude that it is wrong tactics to try to solve Air Malta`s problems in isolation. We need to see the much larger picture. We need to create a mechanism where employers, public or private, who have to conduct Air Malta type re-organisations to save their business from financial collapse, will have the facility to place their excess manpower in a state-sponsored re-training scheme. Such scheme will give redundant employees an opportunity to find alternative employment through acquisition of new skills, whilst remaining employees accept a freeze in their pay plus efficiency changes to ensure that their employer can survive and offer back, through sustainable growth, a productive job to those that had to be shed out to the State sponsored re-training scheme.
By taking a wider view of the problem we can put on the negotiating table the missing equity component which is currently leading employees to ask with honesty and conviction ` why me`? Why are others in central government and state organisations not subject to market competition pressures like Air Malta, exempted from re-structuring when in fact they could be costing the taxpayer much more and contributing much less?
No comments:
Post a Comment