Imposition of wage increases without union agreement undermines fundamental labour practices and collective bargaining

Dear Editor,

The recently announced wage/salary and allowances increase is not the first time a government announced same without the agreement of the union. This practice of imposing a ‘tek wha yoh get’ policy started under the anti-working class Bharrat Jagdeo administration. Continuing to breach what ought to be an inviolable practice, the coalition stands the risk of being labelled a Granger ‘tek wha yoh get’ policy. The latter also serves to undermine fundamental labour practices and collective bargaining.

During the Forbes Burnham administration, while there would have been engagement between the government and trade union in determining wages and salaries, in the event the parties did not arrive at an agreement during Christmas, the government announced an interim increase and allowed the negotiation to continue.

Today, workers continue to struggle to have their right respected to associate with a union of their choice and have that union engage in collective bargaining on their behalf, even though the Constitution offers them that protection. Whereas pay raise and other allowances are noted and welcomed, it must not be ignored that same were arrived at without regard for time-honoured principles and laws.

To the issue of sugar and the claim that these workers have not been paid an increase, this matter is not only about this being likely or not, but the absence of collective bargaining which requires sitting at the table in an environment of mutual respect, hammering out issues, and arriving at an agreement.

Recently, the union representing these workers turned up at a negotiation with GuySuCo management and whipped out placards addressing concerns. Even though this may be seen by some as a PR gimmick and is not the norm, it does not violate any law. Given that the action was out of the norm, even if management was taken unaware and had adjourned the meeting, the adjournment should have been used to review the importance of that meeting to workers and a stable industrial environment; the right of those to protest; and whether any laws were being violated, among other things.

Outside of that, management’s action played into the hands of the protesters and may be seen by some as the lack of good judgement, demonstration of intolerance and opportunity taken to exercise power. The management and union must return to the table and engage in the process of collective bargaining consistent with their Collective Labour Agreement (CLA), at the conclusion of which an agreement would be arrived at.

When labour practices create all these animosities in itself, it stands the risk of becoming the most singular destructive force to social cohesion. We must return to upholding the principle of engagement and respect the workers’ right to representation at the negotiation table.

During the Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte administrations, even when young canes were being burnt in the fields and scab labour was sent in to seek to save the remnants of the crop when sugar workers were on strike, collective bargaining was never discontinued.

Without getting into the details of the loss to the economy on this matter, others before have done so in detail as reference is made to the late Dr Tyrone Ferguson’s book, ‘To Survive Sensibly Or to Court Heroic Death: Management of Guyana’s Political Economy, 1965-85.’ Some may argue that after the change of government in October 1992, the burning of young canes ceased but that is beside the point here. The essence of this argument is even in most trying times, the door/room for engagement was never closed.

Notably, what is happening in sugar is also happening in mining (BCGI/RUSAL and Troy Resources) and elsewhere, which is developing a labour culture where the grievances procedures in the respective CLAs are not being allowed to work. This act

is being facilitated by the Labour Department. Also, while the contempt may have started under the Jagdeo administration, it continues unabated in this current administration. This gives rise to the concern raised often by me about non-adherence to time-honoured principles, international conventions, rights and the rule of law. This is even more concerning in an environment where there is an absence of a Labour Policy Framework and a ministry of labour that would have clear cut policies.

It is not lost on me that in the coalition arrangement, the AFC has ministerial responsibilities for agriculture (sugar) and natural resources (bauxite, gold, etc), the WPA for the public sector, and the PNC for education. Strangely, these are the sectors that continue to experience the violation of Collective Bargaining. The Department of Labour’s political head is Minister Keith Scott, of one of the smaller parties. Scott is the junior minister within the Ministry of Social Protection headed by Minister Amna Ally, who is of the PNC. It is left for one to wonder whether Scott is acting independently and therefore left to create these untenable situations. It is evident that whereas the coalition is advocating social cohesion, same is missing within their ranks, particularly as it relates to a common labour policy, programme, and intent. They have to fix this.

A historical review of labour in Guyana will demonstrate that amongst the first things the Government of Guyana did on achieving independence, was to join the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and sign on to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which are the Right to Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. After coming out of the sordid history of slavery, indentureship and colonialism, where basic rights and freedoms for people were denied, this marked a major achievement in our quest to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace and wider society. One wonders whether this valuable practice has been lost by the coalition and more particularly, the PNC, whose legacy as a working-class party is being undermined.

Yours faithfully, Lincoln Lewis