Now that I’m out of it in so far as paid employment is
concerned – and any improvements in status, salaries or conditions will have
absolutely no material effect on my situation - I hope that I can view the matter with a degree of detachment.
Following the agreement reached between the teaching profession and government,
the Maltese Association of Social Workers (MASW) have called for a similar
agreement for our profession – or words to that effect - reflecting an
appreciation of the importance of the role of social workers in contemporary
society and thus sending an important message about the nation’s commitment to
helping its most vulnerable citizens. Few people in their right senses would even
begin to doubt that this request is reasonable and just.
In the context of the intra-profession discussion
about this, the matter of whether the unions representing
social workers would be up to the demands of the situation, and indeed have the fire in their belly necessary to
fight the good fight, came up. Inevitably, the question of
whether a dedicated union should be set up is also being discussed with a fair
degree of animation. Many members seem dissatisfied with the way the unions are approaching
collective agreements and the improvements in conditions they have managed to secure. Other colleagues have pointed
out that the level of interests displayed by many social workers in
negotiations – as evident from the attendance in meetings called by the unions – is pretty low. In other words, according to
the latter view, we’re relying too much on the unions as guided by a
small number of colleagues doing the work for us and we are not displaying
commitment and unity.
There are those who are suggesting that the MASW
itself should morph into a Trade Union and conduct negotiations for members
itself. Ever since the inception of the MASW, as other founder and original
members will recall, this idea has been floating around and is periodically
brought down to earth and re-proposed when discussions about salaries and other
conditions become particularly inflamed.
When we set up MASW, there was practically
a consensus that the new organisation would function purely as a professional
association and would aim at enhancing standards and ensuring that social workers would be formally and legally
recognised as professionals. Efforts to improve salaries and conditions would
be the province of the established unions, which were much better versed in industrial relations than
we could ever be and which possessed the expertise and the clout
to negotiate with employers.
Over the past quarter of a century since MASW was set
up, social work has established itself very solidly
within society. Our professional status was recognized a decade and a
half ago, and a sizeable proportion of social workers currently in employment
do not remember a time when we there was no Social Work Act and no
warrants, and when we could not officially call ourselves
professionals. One of MASW’s stated objectives has
thus been clearly and unequivocally achieved.
However, many would point out that salaries and other
conditions, while having registered substantial improvement over the years,
still fall quite significantly short of what we deem to be just and
fair. While a professional status is essential for the prestige of social work,
many of us are firmly of the view that pay-packets and conditions must be
boosted if they are to reflect the importance and objective difficulties of our
work, and its contribution to a more just and more inclusive society. The unions are held by some to be unable or unwilling to accord
the interests of social workers the energy required to bring about the desired
improvements.
Given this situation should other forms of industrial
representation be sought? There are arguments both for and against the setting
up of a union catering solely for social workers.
To go through them would be beyond the scope of this piece.
Is the transformation of the MASW into a union a sensible solution to the problem – as perceived
by some – of inadequate industrial representation? A union and a professional association differ in fundamental
ways. The core function of a union is collective bargaining: striving
to better conditions of its members as a whole. Another fundamentally important
role is the protection of individual workers through the provision of advice or
representation when difficulties of an industrial nature arise.
A professional association’s function is different.
Its raison d’etre is the promotion of professional standards, such as professional ethics. It does not look at the material conditions
per se, although it may comment about them in the light of
their relationship with the professional status of its members. To an extent,
it is concerned with furthering the education of its members and representing the profession (not individual members) when
required. It is concerned with the quality of the delivery of social work, its
effectiveness, its role in society, relations with clients and relations between workers. Crucially, it articulates the
voice of social workers in relation to issues of social justice in the country.
Some argue that it is possible to amalgamate the two
functions, and indeed point to entities
representing other profession which also maintain a trade union role. I would
argue that there is an inherent difference in upholding the highest of professional standards – and then defending member who may
have violated those very standards. That other organisations
have apparently managed to merge the two roles is testament to a flexibility of principles which I would not like my profession
to be capable of. The
respect for boundaries, we all know, is crucial for healthy functioning. The
boundary between ethics and material benefits is one we would do well to
foster.
This
is not to denigrate, or even minimise, the
importance of strong trade union representation. Only the masochistically naive
would fail to recognise that while man does not live by bread alone,
its provision is essential for the survival of the individuals who make up the
profession in the first place. Let the discussion begin about how best to
ensure that what is rightly ours in terms of conditions and status is accorded
to us, but do not mess with the MASW’s essential nature. To turn it into a
union – which effectively means doing away with the concern for the precedence
of professionalism in our work – would be signalling that we too have gone with
the flow and succumbed to the belief in the primacy of the material over
the ethical.
I,
for one, will have no truck with that.
