Blairmont sugar workers have been vindicated in their protest

Dear Editor,

The Department of Labour on (Wednesday) February 12 finally delivered its findings and recommendations regarding claims by workers of Blairmont factory over what they felt was discriminatory treatment meted out to them. In October, last year, the workers protested after a former manager, who was reemployed as an artisan, was promoted and capable and able factory workers with several years-of-service were bypassed for promotion. While the workers hadn’t any aversion to the promoted worker, they contended that the long-standing system for promotion was deviated from and they sought that the system be adhered to in the interest of fairness.

The Union had pointed out that the Corporation disregarded its own Personnel Manual which clearly spelt out the process for promotion. The GuySuCo in response, astonishingly, said it had the right to ignore its own policy. Apart from that, the GAWU demonstrated that the Recognition and the Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes was also disobeyed by the Corporation. Notwithstanding what we felt were convincing and rational arguments, the sugar company adamantly refused to budge. The situation saw the workers taking protest actions as they, undoubtedly, felt they were in the right. The continued action by the workers resulted in the intervention

enforcement institutions, national contemplation on the issue of crime and security is the business of the entire nation and not just the various state and nonstate institutions concerned with security. We can no longer quibble amongst ourselves as to whether crime patterns are evolving (as evidenced in the instance of the GTT Giftland robbery) since the evidence is certainly there. Going beyond the Giftland caper, we are seeing the emergence of bicycled gangs of youngsters roaming the streets in search of opportunistic robbery openings pose their own threat. Their favoured modus operandi, it seems, is to pounce on mostly (though by no means exclusively) unsuspecting women of their handbags. They are dangerous because they are swift and violent and because they carry knives which they have demonstrated a willingness to use in response to any resistance from their victims. Beyond that, some of our inner city communities continue to be havens for opportunistic crimes. Early evening crimes,. some of which go unreported, are also an issue. One of the ‘iffy’ areas being the half a dozen blocks or so on Robb Street, between Camp Street and Avenue of the Republic. There are other such stretches of road in central Georgetown that become risky once darkness falls. The likelihood of increased incidents of various types of crime including run-of-the-mill robberies is, incidentally, one of the threatened transformations considered likely to derive from the business activity associated with new-found investment interests in Guyana. It is true that the oil and gasrelated affluence will take some time to materialize but even now, with manifest evidence of heightened investor interest as well as evidence of an increase in business-related visitor arrivals, it is more than likely that the strategically inclined criminals are

of the Department of Labour which convened conciliatory proceedings.

At the conciliatory level, the Union reiterated what it said at the bilateral level and contended that the company was clearly in the wrong and the workers themselves have been wronged. After several months and a number of reminders from the Union, the Labour Department on Wednesday invited the parties to present its findings. The conciliator, Francis Carryl, in his report found that the Corporation did not abide by its own policy. Furthermore, he concluded that the GuySuCo disregarded the legally-binding agreement between the Union and the

already busy at the drawing board. A few weeks ago, during a conversation with this newspaper shortly after he had opened his new Security Store on Chalmers Place, off Brickdam, a businessman made the perfectly salient point that business houses and individuals alike need to be much more mindful of the security of their persons and their property and that we may have arrived at a stage where we simply must raise our game beyond what obtains at this time. This, he pointed out, will, of necessity, have to go beyond the stepped up training and equipping of the Guyana Police Force, the existing Security Services and of course the many others that will doubtless mushroom in the period ahead. His point was the greater the priority we place on security the more costly the service will become. On the other hand, he pointed out, we frown on making meaningful and workable investments in shoring up our security infrastructure at our own peril. On the basis of what would appear to lie ahead there is a considerable measure of merit in what he says. The reality, whether we like it or not, is that the international attention, investments and hoped-for returns that we anticipate from the expected change in the country’s fortunes will come at a material cost. The price of not facing the reality of having to bear that cost, however, is almost certain to be much higher.

Corporation. Using several precedents, the conciliator was critical of the Corporation’s actions and recommended that the promotion of the worker in question be rescinded. The GAWU which has just received the full report of the conciliator is currently considering his findings and recommendations. Prior to the Labour Department making its views known, the Corporation, without any explanation, has transferred the worker-in-question to Albion estate.

Indeed, the Labour Department, through its findings, has upheld the justness of the workers struggle to be treated equitably and fairly. For the GAWU, it was upsetting, that the workers again must struggle in order to be treated with respect and for the system developed in their interest to be embraced. It is yet another reminder of the dim regard some have for workers principled concerns. We sincerely believe the entire episode could have been avoided, however, the Corporation, though having no valid rationale, held on adamantly to what has not been found to be deemed a wrong stand. For us we cannot comprehend why the Corporation went to such lengths though it must have known that its position could not have withstood even the flimsiest film of scrutiny? It would be interesting to know what were its motivation/s.

As we consider the entire incident, we recalled the GuySuCo, according to the January 03, Stabroek News, was critical of the workers of Blairmont Estate for their stance. However, as time as ultimately demonstrated, it was the Corporation that should accept wrong-doing and responsibility for the entire state-ofaffairs.

Yours faithfully, Seepaul Narine General Secretary GAWU