(story to be published in tomorrow's issue, March 17)
Unions have stirred up a lot of commotion in public utilities lately. Even Conel workers took to the streets yesterdays in several cities, to protest restructuring. Trade union leaders took advantage of the fact that the medium-term economic development Strategy needs a consensus, and again brandished the thesis that public utilities are untouchable, demanding that utilities should not be touched by privatisation for the next ten years. What drove them? Concern for the consumer? There are enough reasons to be sceptical. First, major trade unions would not be major if the people they represent, especially the employees of the former regie monopolies, in the remaining major state enterprises, plus the budget employees, would not be so numerous. Because the representation of private employees in these major unions is virtually zero. Hence the clear interest of union blocs to keep the former regies as they are. Is this the consumer's real interest, as the unions claim? Obviously not. For ten years, authorised voices that have gained ever wider audiences have been unable to explain a fairly simple fact: monopoly cannot produce anything good for the consumer, because a single producer will not be concerned with competition, and will be able to charge any price, will be careless about costs and efficiency, let alone quality. Consequently, the customer must accept a product of random quality at a random price, because he cannot turn his back on the single producer. How many of us aren't constantly complaining of paying too much for electricity, or that the heating administration is supplying heat once in a blue moon, but demands us to pay for what we did not get? True, a modern and de-monopolised energy system involves massive layoffs. But is it right to let millions of people and an economy suffer for the sake of a few hundred thousand employees in former regies, who get handsome salaries as a reward for a total lack of efficiency and who will never give up such charity willingly? There is the example of a western concern that bought a factory in Moldova and came into possession of an old heating station that supplied half of a town and had about 500 employees. The business-minded investors promised to bring, on their own expense (tens of millions of dollars) a new heating station that does not pollute, gives out more heat and needs 5-10 employees. Reason enough for unions to grumble - how can a few thousand residences better heated and an entire region less polluted make up for 500 lost jobs? To all these "blessings" of the monopolies, vehemently protected by the gentlemen in the unions, adds the complete contradiction with worldwide trends. Unless we can claim - which would not be uncommon here - that Romania is inventing hot water and walking, and if we are bound for European integration, we see that everywhere public utilities have been opened to competition, to the benefit of consumers. Even a telecommunications company managed by the German state, and not by one haunted by the proverbial Balkan habits, has been forced by competition to improve its fares. It is true that in our case, the RomTelecom privatisation replaced a misfit state monopoly with a misfit private monopoly, which raises prices with the same regularity as its predecessor. An argument served to the unions on a platter against privatising public utilities. The only argument.
Pentru alte știri, analize, articole și informații din business în timp real urmărește Ziarul Financiar pe WhatsApp Channels
