It is a shame that die-hard trades unionists, who allege to be looking after the interests of the working class, so often cocoon themselves from the real world. They employ strong-arm tactics that often worsen labour relations within a company. They intimidate employers and employees alike. They refuse to discuss pensions at 63 and 65, or equal contributions by public and private sector workers to the near-bankrupt Social Insurance Fund.
Instead, they want to squeeze every last cent from enterprises for vague and secretive welfare funds, demand a 14th salary and ludicrous work hours.
They do little to improve the labour market or to help propel the
Reports have even suggested that some workers live below the poverty line, because unions do not want to abolish the minimum wage for fear of losing a privilege to secure comfortable salaries for entry-level public servants at the behest of politicians.
Many of these union leaders are even blinded by their own prospects of retirement, with hardly any representative below the “mature age†benchmark of 40. So, should we get rid of unions altogether?
That would be a great idea, as the blame for the lack of progress on many labour issues lies primarily with these stubborn people. But to paraphrase a saying, if a toe is injured you don’t cut off the leg.
What is needed is emergency surgery, including brain, heart and liver transplants, as the limbs of the labour force are working well. The unions should adjust to the 21st century and see the big picture, that unless they reform, they will run out of members to recruit from due to rising unemployment and businesses fleeing Cyprus.
Judging from the diverse disagreements among members of the present administration, there is no hope of any labour reform there either. With presidential elections just 11 months away and the ruling coalition at its most fragile state, the issues of early retirement and increased contributions to the pension fund are hot potatoes no one wants to deal with at present.
More so are civil servants’ privilege of paying lower contributions than private sector employees and earning an equal if not higher pension. And let’s not forget the “royal†bonus, whereby public servants get six months’ unemployment benefit upon retirement while ordinary hard-working employees are rewarded with a basic pension.
The Finance Minister should stick to his guns and fight off any hostility from coalition members on the issue of increased and better balanced contributions, because 20, 30 or even 40 years from now, we will have a pension to draw due to the foresight of this man who seems to care more about the welfare of the future generations than many other people in government.
