Paga minima diċenti

Nhar it-Tnejn, waqt id-diskors tal-buġit konna infurmati biż-żieda statutorja annwali fil-paga minima. Kif nafu ser tkun żieda ta’ €1.75. Bosta ikkummentaw li dan mhux biżżejjed. Hi r-reazzjoni naturali li nisimgħu kważi kull sena.

Meta żieda fil-paga minima, li nirreferu għaliha bħala żieda għall-għoli tal-ħajja, ma tikkorrispondix ma kemm fil-fatt il-ħajja tkun qed togħla jinħolqu bosta problemi għall-persuni u gruppi vulnerabbli.  Meta żieda għall-għoli tal-ħajja ma tkunx adegwata, din tiekol ukoll mill-valur tal-pagi li jkunu għola mill-paga minima. Dan iseħħ minħabba li l-baskett ta’ oġġetti u servizzi li jintużaw biex permezz tagħhom titkejjel żieda fl-għoli tal-ħajja ma jkunx għadu jirrifletti r-realtà dwar il-ħtiġijiet bażiċi tan-nies.

Aħna, bħala partit ilna żmien nitkellmu dwar il-ħtieġa li jkun aġġornat il-kontenut tal-baskett ta’ oġġetti u servizzi li bih titkejjel l-għoli tal-ħajja u tkun determinata l-paga minima. Dan irid ikun aġġornat għaż-żminijiet.  

Il-Caritas f’Malta għamlet diversi studji dwar dan. L-aħħar wieħed li kien ippubblikat f’Diċembru 2020 kien jiffoka fuq tlett kategoriji vulnerabbli bi dħul baxx. Ir-rapport kien intitolat : A Minimum Essential Budget for a Decent Living. Jiena diġa ktibt dwar dan f’dawn il-paġni fi Frar li għadda.  Dwar familja li tikkonsisti f’żewġ adulti u żewġt itfal l-istudju tal-Caritas kien ikkonkluda li bil-prezzijiet tal-2020, bħala minimu, kienu meħtieġa  €14,000 f’sena għal għixien diċenti. Bejn wieħed u ieħor dak hu madwar  €4,000 iktar mill-paga minima attwali. Il-paga minima mhiex paga li tista’ tgħix biha. Min hu bil-paga minima qed jgħix fil-faqar minkejja li jaħdem.  

Qabel ma tħabbar il-buġit iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa mill-Ministru tal-Finanzi Clyde Caruana, hu parla ħafna dwar proposta li qal li kien qed iħejji biex ikunu ndirizzati l-ħtiġijiet tal-persuni vulnerabbli lil hinn minn dak li tipprovdi l-COLA (Il-mekkaniżmu ta’ aġġustament fil-pagi għall-għoli tal-ħajja).  Imma meta qara l-buġit, minkejja li dam jaqra mhux ħażin, ma qal xejn minn dan. Irid jistudja iktar mal-imsieħba soċjali, qal!

Il-proċess konsultattiv dwar proposta għal direttiva tal-EU dwar paga minima diċenti ilu ftit għaddej. Il-proposta tfittex biex toħloq għodda aċċettabli ħalli bihom tkun tista’ tiġi mkejla kemm għandha tkun il-paga minima f’kull pajjiż individwali tal-EU. Fl-istudju dwar l-impatti ta’ din il-direttiva kien emfasizzat li l-paga minima tkun waħda adegwata meta tkun ġusta fil-konfront tal-pagi ta’ ħaddiema oħrajn u meta tipprovdi għal għixien diċenti.Dan fil-kuntest tal-kundizzjonijiet ekonomiċi tal-pajjiżi individwali.  Il-proposta tal-EU tfisser kif dan jista’ jsir b’għodda statistika.

Malta hi wieħed minn disa’ pajjiżi Ewropej fejn il-paga minima li titħallas skond il-liġi mhiex garanzija kontra r-riskju tal-faqar. Minkejja dan Malta hi wieħed mill-pajjiżi li qed jopponu l-introduzzjoni ta’ direttiva li tindirizza bis-serjetà l-adegwatezza tal-paga minima.

L-istudju tal-Caritas diġa żvela li l-paga minima jonqosha €4,000 fis-sena biex toqrob lejn paga diċenti. Iktar ma ddum ma tittieħed azzjoni din id-differenza iktar ser tikber. Huwa ferm aħjar li tiżdied il-paga kemm hemm bżonn milli jkunu ntrodotti servizzi soċjali addizzjonali biex jagħmlu tajjeb għan-nuqqas.  

Min jaħdem għandu dritt għal paga ġusta: il-paga minima mhiex waħda ġusta. Il-paga minima trid tkun paga li tista’ tgħix biha għax tkun tkopri l-ħtiġijiet bażiċi tal-familja. Għandna bżonn ekonomija sensittiva għall-ħtiġijiet umani.

M’għandniex noqgħodu nistennew soluzzjoni Ewropeja. L-istudju tal-Caritas ilu li wera lil kulħadd ir-realità. Imma  l-Parlament jibqa’ jinjora dan kollu.   Huma biss Membri Parlamentari eletti minn fost dawk ippreżentati minn ADPD li jistgħu jibdew it-triq għal deċizjoni li torbot ħalli l-paga minima tkun waħda li tista’ tgħix biha.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 17 t’ Ottubru 2021

Minimum wage should be a living wage

During the budget speech on Monday, we were informed of the statutory (annual) increase to the minimum wage as of next January. It is a €1.75 increase, as we well know. Many have commented that it is not enough. It is a natural reaction which we hear about almost year in year out.

When an increase in the minimum wage, also referred to as a cost-of-living increase, does not correspond to the actual increase in the cost of living, it creates a lot of problems for vulnerable persons and groups. It also erodes the value of wages currently above the minimum. This occurs because the basket of goods and services used to gauge the cost-of-living increase is out of tune and does not correspond to what is actually occurring on the ground.

Greens have repeatedly insisted on the need to replace the current basket of goods and services used to determine the minimum wage. The contents of such a basket cannot be static as our needs change with time continuously.

Caritas in Malta has carried out various studies in this respect. The latest was carried out and published in December 2020 and focused on three low-income household categories. It is entitled: A Minimum Essential Budget for a Decent Living. I have already written on the matter in these pages (A minimum income for a decent living: 7 February 2021). In respect of a family composed of 2 adults and 2 children, it was concluded, in the Caritas study, that the minimum budget required at 2020 prices was slightly under €14,000. That is approximately €4,000 over and above the actual minimum wage. Those earning a minimum wage are clearly the working poor. The minimum wage is not a living wage

Prior to the budget announced earlier this week Finance Minister Clyde Caruana made many noises on a proposal that, he said, he was planning for the budget speech. The proposal he had in mind would address the needs of vulnerable persons which needs, the COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) does not address. However, when push came to shove no such proposal materialised: the Minister declared that together with MCESD he will only study the matter further!

A consultation process on a proposal for an EU Directive on adequate minimum wages within the EU has been under way for some time. The proposal seeks to determine the manner in which an adequate minimum wage is to be determined. The impact assessment carried out relative to the EU proposals emphasises that “Minimum wages can be considered adequate when they are fair vis-à-vis the wages of other workers and when they provide a decent standard of living, taking into account general economic conditions in the country.” The EU proposal proposes the creation of a “double decency threshold” which would ensure decent minimum wages. This threshold is expressed in terms of the median and average wages in the different member states.

Malta is one of nine European countries where the statutory minimum wage does not protect minimum wage earners against the risk of poverty. Yet Malta is one of the countries which is opposing a mandatory EU Directive addressing the adequacy of the minimum wage!

The Caritas study has already revealed that the gap between the minimum wage and the required level of decency is to the tune of €4,000 per annum. The longer it takes for action to materialise the wider the gap will become.  It is the minimum wage which must increase, not government handouts.

Making work pay? The minimum wage should be a living wage: it should be sufficient for the basic needs of a family, but unfortunately it is not. We need an economy which cares.

We should not wait for an EU solution to our minimum wage problem. The Caritas study has indicated the way forward many moons ago. Yet Parliament keeps ignoring it!  Only Green Members of Parliament can ensure that Parliament addresses this decency gap thereby ensuring that the minimum wage is also living wage.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 October 2021

Il-karba tal-art, il-weġgħat tan-Natura

Il-faqar u l-ħsara ambjentali huma relatati. Qishom tewmin, inkella ż-żewġ naħat tal-istess munita. Il-faqar jiġġenera ħsara ambjentali filwaqt li l-ħsara ambjentali inevitabilment twassal għall-faqar.

Dan kien emfasizzat minn Indira Gandhi, dak iż-żmien Prim Ministru tal-Indja, meta fl-1972, fi Stokkolma, indirizzat konferenza tal-Ġnus Magħquda dwar l-Ambjent Uman. Din hi wkoll it-tema ewlenija tal-eko-enċiklika Laudato Si tal-Papa Franġisku, kif ukoll l-argument bażiku tas-Sinodu tal-Isfqijiet tar-Reġjun tal-Amazonja li presentment għaddej f’Ruma. Il-konferenza ta’ Stokkolma kienet l-ewwel waħda tax-xorta tagħha dwar materji ambjentali internazzjonali. Kienet ix-xrara li kebbset l-iżvilupp tal-politika ambjentali internazzjonali.

Fi ftit kliem, il-politika soċjali u dik ambjentali huma interrelatati: huma dak li l-egħruq Latino Amerikani tat-tejoloġija tal-liberazzjoni jiddeskrivu bħala “ekoloġija integrali”.

Maurice Strong, Segretarju Ġenerali tal-konferenza tal-Ġnus Magħquda dwar l-Ambjent Uman fi Stokkolma kiteb, fil-memorji tiegħu, dwar kemm u kif id-diskors ta’ Indira Gandhi fil-konferenza mhux biss baqa’ miftakar imma fuq kollox kemm kien influwenti. It-tema li Gandhi żviluppata b’komunikattiva kbira kienet dwar kif “il-faqar hu l-ikbar sors ta’ tniġġiż”. Kienet emfasizzat b’qawwa : “ kif qatt nistgħu nikkonvinċu lin-nies fl-irħula u fil-griebeġ biex iżommu l-ibħra, ix-xmajjar u l-arja ndaf u ħielsa mit-tniġġiż, meta ħajjithom hi kollha kemm hi tniġġisa waħda?”

Il-ħajja hi katina. Aħna l-bnedmin niffurmaw parti ntegrali min-natura. Saħhitna hi rifless tas-saħħa tan-natura. Id-dmugħ tagħna huma d-dmugħ tal-istess natura.

Leonardo Boff, il-Franġiskan Brażiljan, esponent ewlieni tat-tejoloġija tal-liberazzjoni, jitkellem ċar ħafna biex jiddeskrivi dan, saħansitra fit-titlu tal-ktieb influwenti tiegħu tal-1995 : “Il-karba tal-art, il-karba tal-fqir” (Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres.) L-argumenti f’dan il-ktieb kienu influwenti kemm fl-eko-enċiklika ta’ Jorge Bergoglio kif ukoll fis-Sinodu tal-Isfqijiet tal-Amazonja li għaddej bħalissa.

Il-ħsara ambjentali għandha impatt enormi fuq il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll. Fuq il-ħajja ta’ kulħadd ħlief ta’ dawk il-ftit li jaħtfu għalihom u għal ta’ madwarhom vantaġġi ekonomiċi jew ta’ xorta oħra u fl-istess ħin jitfgħu l-pizijiet fuq ħaddieħor.

Il-ħsara ambjentali hi strument għall-inġustizzja soċjali. Il-ħarsien ambjentali hu, għaldaqstant essenzjali biex tissaħħaħ il-ġustizzja soċjali.

Id-dinja li qed ngħixu fiha hi d-dar komuni tagħna: flimkien magħha għanda futur komuni. Kull ħsara li nagħmlu fin-natura jispiċċa lura fuqna. Bħal min jobżoq lejn is-sema, u tgħallem li dak li jagħmel dejjem jiġi lura f’wiċċu!

Hemm l-impatti diretti bħal meta l-arja tant meħtieġa għan-nifs tkun imniġġsa, inkella meta l-ilma jkun ikkontaminat, jew ħaxix inkella ħut li jkun imniġġeż minħabba diversi fatturi ambjentali.

Imbagħad hemm l-impatti ndiretti li jieħdu ż-żmien biex jimmaterjalizzaw. Bħat-tibdil fil-klima. L-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju ilhom jakkumulaw għal mijiet ta’ snin b’mod li jidher, minn diversi studji, li qed noqorbu lejn xi waħda kbira. Bħala riżultat tat-tibdil fil-klima qed nisograw impatti katastrofiċi: żieda fit-temperatura u silġ li jdub b’mod aċċelerat fil-poli u fil-Grenlandja b’mod partikolari: dawn iwasslu għal żieda sostanzjali fil-livell tal-baħar.

Il-vulnerabbli u l-foqra ikunu dawk li l-iżjed ilaqqtuha. L-istati gżejjer żgħar fil-Paċifiku diġa qed jgħaddu minn din l-esperjenza. Għandna speċi ġdida ta’ immigranti: ir-refuġjati tal-klima li qed jaħarbu minn impatti ambjentali li jridu jissaportu mingħajr ma kkontribwew għalihom.

In-natura, kif nafu, tirritalja b’qawwa kontinwament biex tirrestawra bilanċ. M’għandhiex għażla. Lanqas ma tiddiskrimina.

Dan hu kollu frott tar-rgħiba. Hi frott ta’ viżjoni li ma tħarisx fit-tul. Viżjoni li ma titlifx opportunità waħda biex issarraf vantaġġi li jistgħu jinkisbu malajr bla ma jkun hemm l-iċken idea tal-impatti fit-tul.

In-natura hi kapaċi tipprovdi għall-ħtiġijiet ta’ kulħadd. Imma ma tistax tissodisfa r-rgħiba fit-tul. F’din il-komunità ekoloġika jeħtieg li mhux biss ningwalawha man-natura, mal-ambjent immedjat tagħna, imma iktar mal-ambjent fit-totalità tiegħu, mal-ambjent integrat. Dan jista’ jsir biss jekk jirnexxielna nifhmu u nagħtu kaz tal-weġgħat tan-natura.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 13 t’Ottubru 2019

The tears of the Earth

Poverty and environmental degradation are inter-related. They are, in fact, twins or possibly the two sides of the same coin. Poverty generates environmental degradation while environmental degradation inevitably results in poverty.

This was emphasised by Indira Gandhi, then Indian Prime Minister, way back in 1972 during her intervention at the United Nations Stockholm conference on the Human Environment. It is also the underlying theme of Laudato Si, the eco-encyclical of Pope Francis, and a basic theme of the Bishops Synod for the Pan-Amazonian Region currently proceeding in Rome.

The Stockholm Conference was the United Nations first major conference on international environmental issues and marked the definite turning point in the development of international environmental politics.

Put simply, social and environmental policy are interlinked: it is what the Latin American roots of liberation theology describe as “the integral ecology”.

In his memoirs, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment described Indira Gandhi’s Stockholm speech as being the most memorable and influential speech of the entire conference. The theme – which she forcefully developed and communicated – was that “poverty is the greatest polluter”. She eloquently emphasised: “…… how can we speak to those who live in villages and in slums about keeping the oceans, the rivers and the air clean, when their own lives are contaminated at the source?”

Everything is related. We humans are an integral part of the natural order:our health is the earth’s health; our tears are the earth’s tears.

Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian Franciscan Liberation Theologist, uses crystal clear language to describe this, even encapsulating it in the title of his 1995 seminal publication: “Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor” (Grito da Terra, Grito dos Pobres) which is the essential backdrop for both Jorge Bergoglio’s eco-encyclical as well as for the Amazonian Bishop’s Synod currently under way.

Environmental degradation has a considerable impact on the quality of life of all of us except, that is, for the quality of life of the select few who pocket profits by appropriating for themselves advantages (economic or otherwise) and lumping the negative impacts on the rest.

Environmental degradation is an instrument of social injustice. Consequently, enhancing the protection of the environment is also essential to restore social justice. The Earth is our common home: together with the earth we have a common future and all the damage we cause comes back to us.

There are the direct impacts, such as having to breathe contaminated air, drink polluted water, or eat fish and/or vegetables which contain various contaminants.

There are also the indirect impacts which take time to materialise. Climate change is a case in point. A slow build-up of carbon emissions over the centuries is currently close to a tipping point. We risk a catastrophic impact as a result of climate change: an increase in temperature and an accelerated melting of ice at the poles, and in Greenland in particular, which would lead to a substantial increase in sea level rise.

The poor and the vulnerable will be those most affected. The vulnerable small island states in the Pacific are already experiencing these impacts. “Climate Refugees” are a new breed of immigrants, fleeing from the environmental impacts which they have to shoulder but to which they did not contribute.

The Earth continuously retaliates to restore a natural balance. It has no choice: it does not discriminate.

This is the result of greed – a myopic vision which takes every opportunity to cash on short-terms gains but is unable to understand the long-term impacts.

Nature is able to provide for the needs of everyone. It is, however, unable to sustain long-term greed. In our ecological community we need to interact not just with nature, our immediate environment, but more with the total environment. This can only be achieved if we take heed of the tears of the Earth.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 13 October 2019

Pope Benedict XVI : Laying the Groundwork for a Sustainable Civilization ?

by Gary Gardner

Published by Worldwatch Institute on April 15, 2008

Rumour has it that Pope Benedict may address climate change during his visit to the United Nations this week. Whether he does or not, his young papacy can claim to be the “greenest” ever. Benedict has identified extensive common ground between sustainability concerns and a Catholic worldview – adding weight to the argument that the world’s religions could be instrumental in nudging policymakers and the public to embrace sustainability. Now, the Pope has the opportunity to further develop the links between sustainability and religious values, markedly advancing thinking in both arenas.

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, made important environmental statements during his long papacy, but Benedict is the first “green pope.” Last year, the Vatican installed solar panels on its 10,000-seat main auditorium building, and it arranged to reforest land in Hungary to offset Vatican City’s carbon emissions, making it the world’s first carbon-neutral state. And Benedict has repeatedly urged protection of the environment and action against poverty in a number of major addresses. His next encyclical (major papal teaching), due out this summer, is expected to further wrestle with environmental, social, and other themes of interest to the sustainability community.

As he embraces these themes, Benedict and the larger Catholic community could play an especially valuable role in helping to address two major influences on the environment that get too little attention today: consumption and population. (A third, technology, already receives high levels of policy focus.)

The consumption question should be comfortable ground for a modern Catholic pope, given the longstanding social and spiritual critique of consumerism in Catholic thought. For example, Pope Paul VI, in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, linked heavy consumption to injustice, declaring that, “No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life…. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

John Paul II added a spiritual dimension in Centesimus Annus in 1991, critiquing “a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards ‘having’ rather than ‘being,'” and urging people to “create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.” The Church’s spiritual and social teachings are rich complements to modern environmental arguments against consumerism.

Benedict’s challenge is to move longstanding Church teaching into concrete action. Despite the extensive archive of papal statements on the subject, there is no evidence that Catholics consume less or differently than anyone else. Yet given that 40 percent of the human family lives on less than $2 a day while the prosperous among us consume casually and wastefully, Catholic leadership in redefining “the good life” away from accumulation and toward greater human wellbeing and solidarity with the poor cannot come soon enough.

Benedict will need to be creative in persuading the comfortable in his Church to take consumption teachings seriously. The dramatic equivalent of solar panels on a Vatican rooftop may be needed to move prosperous Catholics to critically assess their own consumption-and to find joy in consuming less.

The other issue, population, is more difficult for a Catholic leader to tackle, especially one with Benedict’s reputation for doctrinal strictness. For Benedict and most Catholics, human reproduction is a domain infused with questions of deep personal morality. But a pontiff who appreciates the epochal nature of the sustainability crisis must surely also recognize the moral challenges raised when human numbers grow exponentially in a finite world.

How much of modern hunger, disease, poverty, and environmental degradation can be blamed on population sizes that have exceeded the carrying capacity of local, regional, and global environments? The share is unknowable, but surely not small. The challenge for Benedict will be to apply his formidable intellect to harmonize the personal and social ethics of population issues.

Benedict’s interest in sustainability issues comes not a moment too soon. The sustainability crisis is civilizational in scope and depth-and therefore a natural concern for a global institution like the Catholic Church. Should Benedict raise the twin issues of consumption and population to the level of theological and spiritual attention they deserve, he would not only advance thinking on religious ethics-but also on how to create just and environmentally sustainable societies.

Gary Gardner is a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. He is the author of the book Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development.