IPSL pays €9 million to 'surplus' workers, but not enough demand for their skills

The ensuing cost of golden handshakes to 902 former Malta Drydocks employees remains borne by the public sector, because not enough demand exists for their re-employment.

Seven years since the government accepted to pay the MDD’s €700 million debt, the creation of IPSL (Industrial Projects and Services Limited) by Lawrence Gonzi as then social policy ministry has not only absorbed 484 drydocks employees who retained their same basic pay, but an additional 144 surplus workers from so many government agencies like MDC, METCO and IPSE (which merged into Malta Enterprise), Sea Malta, Limsuk, and even remaining shipyard workers from MDD’s successor – Malta Shipyards.

“IPSL has served as a tool to cushion the social and economic impact arising from restructuring exercises,” the National Audit Office says in its 2009 report.

However, it continues, “there may not be demand for the skills and trades of a significant portion of IPSL employees” in the public sector, and private sector employment is not even pursued by the IPSL. Most of the workers, mainly tradesmen, unskilled and support staff (65%) work in government departments; another 23% with local councils.

This raises questions on IPSL’s €9 million salary bill for a workforce which is relatively approaching retirement age (45% are aged over 50), although whose work is “of a satisfactory standard.” All IPSL employees retain their same basic pay as their previous employment, but according to an NAO sample, it is already 18% higher than what is paid by government to other employees performing the same tasks.

“The case study showed that in engaging IPSL employees, government incurred higher costs than those entailed in direct recruitment.”

And because there is little demand for IPSL workers, the employees “are usually assigned work which carries a lower remuneration than that paid to them.”

IPSL doesn’t even have information from employee’s interviews on their transferable skills and if they might be suitable for future job deployment in the private sector.

“The cost of engaging IPSL employees in public sector entities may also not be the most economical due to the policy of guaranteeing the basic pay received in previous employment,” the NAO said, and called for their deployment in private and private-public areas.

avatar
This administration is well past it's date.
avatar
Joseph Caruana
I think the NAO has been fair in acknowledging the cushioning effect IPSL has had to absorb these so called 'surplus' workers: the main concern is a management one. What had to be an organisation to make use of labour as efficiently as possible, is just another money-waster (at least insofar as value of money is concerned).
avatar
But there is! Hasn't there been a rumour of a project involving a €90 million development for making biofuels in Malta that is still with the Government agency Malta Enterprise which will require 135 permanent technicall staff? we read this in Malta star and the E U press the other month and now hear that the same company is proposing a second and larger project of €40 million with a need for up to 200 permanent technical staff. These are the sort of jobs that are needed and as soon as this Company starts it will be inundated with applicants. Any news?
avatar
And they had the gall to close the shipyard and give it to a foreigner. This is how lackey the PN Governments have always been. Leccaculi since their inception.
avatar
IPSL is a modern day 'korp' with a catchy name. I see no logic in the following: “The case study showed that in engaging IPSL employees, government incurred higher costs than those entailed in direct recruitment.” How could sub-contracting be higher than fixed costs? IPSL is still dishing out €9 million in salaries irrispective of the demand. Therefore IPSL should lower its fees and at least recover part of its overheads.
avatar
Alfred Galea
But the unemployment rate didn't go up. Besides what's another nine million euros?