Salaries imposition

There are certain things the public can expect at year end quite apart from the customary seasonal events. One of these is the imposition of across-the-board wages and salary increases for public servants, although this year that is to include teachers as well. In a Facebook announcement President Irfaan Ali said that these increases would be made public shortly. It might be asked why he gave notice that this was the course of action to be taken in advance of giving details of the package. The answer probably relates to the fact that he announced a $25,000 one-off bonus for all public sector workers at the same time, as well as benefits in terms of allowances and concessions in the case of teachers. It is probably hoped that these will serve as sweeteners before the salary hikes are disclosed in order to deflect some of the criticism of their imposition, as well as in the event they are perceived by the recipients as not fulfilling their expectations.

The refusal to engage in collective bargaining with the Guyana Public Service Union especially has become a habit with PPP/C governments, although the coalition government was little better. On Thursday the union issued what has become its almost traditional condemnation of this practice, saying it represented “arbitrary impositions which are in conflict with the President’s obligations with his oath of office to respect and uphold the Constitution and Laws of Guyana.” The GSPU went on to refer to the abuse of workers’ rights which was “disastrous [for] their quality of life and the livelihood of their families.”

It continued by saying that the government had an obligation to respect the laws of Guyana in their entirety, and that the President should not have made the announcement about salaries prior to engaging in collective bargaining. The administration, it said, should be setting the example to other employers.

While the situation with the GSPU has become entrenched over many years, the case of the Guyana Teachers’ Union has taken a rather different tack in recent times. It is not the Ministry of Education which deals with the matter of teachers’ wages and salaries, it is the Office of the President. There was, it appears, more than one meeting at OP beginning in April, when a multiyear pact, among other things, was discussed. What was interesting about the encounter was that the three ministers present were reported to have been Minister of Education Priya Manickchand, Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs Gail Teixeira and Public Service Minister Sonia Parag. No mention of anyone from Finance. Whether it is to be inferred from this that there was never any intention on the part of government to come to an agreement is perhaps a moot point, but what can be said is that in July President Ali announced that he wanted to

talk to the teachers to find out what they wanted.

This was a clear declaration of intent to bypass the union, and while there was some puzzlement on the part of observers about how this was to be achieved given the number of teachers on the payroll, it transpired that head teachers and senior teachers were the ones to be consulted. These were invited to a reception in the agreeable surroundings of the State House lawns last month, and fortified by refreshments the guests then asked the President questions. He set the tone initially with the announcement of housing loans for teachers, and the questions covered a wide range of issues. Where financial matters were concerned, however, he paid close attention when more than one teacher told him that an increase in allowances took precedence over an increase in salaries.

This emphasis was reflected in last week’s statement, with the monthly education allowance for graduate teachers, and those with masters and doctorates, for example, now being $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000, respectively. In addition, graduate teachers will move to the maximum of the scale applicable to the post that they currently occupy. This will affect 4,000 teachers. Then there was the remote area incentive for teachers which now becomes £20,000 from December 1st this year, and the more liberal conditions for qualifying for a duty-free car concession. The union would have to comment on whether this was more or less generous than what it was negotiating for. What can be said is that it would have a larger overview, not just of the issues at hand, but also of the categories of subject and the variations within those categories. Individual head teachers would convey their individual perceptions, but probably not see the larger picture.

At a practical level, therefore, President Ali chose about the most inefficient way of negotiating wages and salaries he could have found. Head teachers and seniors represent only a small portion of all the educators in this country, and are unlikely to be in a position to speak for the entire teaching body. In addition, while they can convey complaints, many of them may have no detailed knowledge of the different classes of allowances and salaries across the board, and little experience of negotiation either. Furthermore, they have not been voted by their peers to represent their interests in encounters with the government, although that does not mean they cannot make their opinions known, or that these opinions do not have validity. It is just that it is the union which should be garnering the views of its members in order to come to a negotiating position, not the government which should be negotiating with a select group of teachers directly.

If the union, to which teachers pay dues and whose executive is voted into office by them is not doing its duty, then that has to be addressed by the membership. Earlier this year GTU General Secretary Coretta McDonald did say that the union’s package in their negotiation with the government was the product of countrywide consultation with the teachers. In her statement last week like the GPSU she too

charged that the President’s action had breached the principle of collective bargaining and was “disrespectful” and “dictatorial”. It was contrary to the position the head of state had adopted when in opposition, she said, and constituted a divide and rule strategy.

As observed so often before where the matter of collective bargaining is concerned, the government is in violation of the Constitution, the law of the land, and the various ILO conventions to which this country is signatory. All that can be said, however, is that transgressing certain sections of the law has never presented a particular challenge for Freedom House. As has also been observed many times before, the trade union movement in Guyana is politicised, and the ruling party has a different approach to GAWU, for example, than it has to those unions which are perceived as being aligned with the opposition. The question of whether they are negotiating in good faith for their members does not override what is perceived to be their political status. The GTU’s position has not been helped by the fact that its General Secretary is now an APNU MP.

But there is something else underlying all this. The PPP/C, as will others, considers that a significant proportion of the teachers and, for that matter, the public servants, vote for the opposition. The administration seems to believe it can win over opposition voters to its camp now that it has oil money to dispense. It does not like autonomous institutions in any case, and particularly so when they are not in ruling party hands. President Ali has been undermining local authorities – Georgetown being a case in point – which are opposition controlled by the expedient of bypassing the elected councils and appealing directly to the residents. Leaving aside the special case of the GPSU which has been circumvented for many years, there is every appearance that the attempted miniaturisation of the GTU is underway. Talking to everyone, over the head of the union or whatever, comes under the head of state’s rubric of ‘One Guyana’.

As a political strategy it will not work in the longer term, for reasons which will not be elaborated on here. Never mind allowances, if the government is not in a financial position to be generous to teachers on the salary front, then President Ali is in danger of seeing his reputation decline in their eyes, while that of the union will be enhanced. At the meeting with teachers in July he was reported as committing to a comprehensive review of their compensation, so it aligned with their dedication and their role in shaping the nation’s future. They will be waiting to see what he will give them in this latest salaries imposition.