A comprehensive register of all gov’t grant recipients should be laid in the National Assembly

Sunday Chronicle of June 19 announced with much pride (in the name of ‘One Guyana’) ‘the creation of some 11,000 part-time jobs in Regions Two, Three, Five, Six and 10’ (distinctively not spelt, probably because of the smallest number of awardees – 1,000). Quite understandably Region Six was granted 4 times more – 4,000 jobs. Equally understandable is the palpable miscount between Regions Three and Five – omitting Region Four (4). The (mis) interpretation must be that the citizens of its communities are fully employed, notwithstanding the closure of two large sugar estates – LBI/Ogle and Enmore, albeit with little mention of any future developmental prospects.

But on further examination one finds it difficult to reconcile the ‘grant’ of $40,000 per month for essentially unskilled work over 10 days (not necessarily consecutive), while reluctantly condoning a minimum wage of $60,000 per month for at least a regularly attended five day week in every month, by ostensibly more skilled employees in an unabashed profit-making Private Sector. How is such ‘discriminacratic’ differentiation explained to any objective witness within the CARICOM Community? Apart from the moral issue of the Government’s familial relationship with its Private Sector, the prospective partners in our proclaimed agricultural development initiative must seriously reflect about negotiating a more professional compensation structure (taking into account the superior value of the respective exchange rates of all the territories in the CSME from which workers are expected to come). The accounting fraternity must be quite puzzled, if not alarmed, at the ubiquitous dispensation of public funds to mostly: i) Unregistered non-institutional workers; and ii) Identifiably unemployed by the current Administration

They would, however quietly, express sympathy for the Office of the Auditor General’s authority to access the attendant records of the wide-spread disbursements reported in the media and, coincidentally, with which the banking systems must have been quite inundated. The following is but a rough summary of the reported grant perambulations:

- Severed sugar workers of closed Skeldon, Rose Hall, East Demerara and Wales Estates.

- For sugar workers of the suspended Uitvlugt Estate operations, the following were the grants: o Small business grants up to $250,000 o Part-time jobs – 10 days per month o Wages and salaries 6 days per week if preference is to remain at estate.

Then there were grants to unemployed in Regions 4, 6 and 7. In the latter 2 Regions – part-time jobs – for ‘many many years’ (stressed by the V.P.) – at $40,000 per month. - Fishermen – $150,000 grant

The point is that there is little or no indication of the numbers of persons involved. How could such nonaccountability be allowed; when on the other hand other agencies, public and private, are required to abide with the relevant legalities? What examples of organisational irregularities are being set, however unintentionally, including for the very persons being solicited? It is time for all of our Trade Unions to unite against demeaning the worth of their memberships as $60,000 for a month of full working days, ludicrously compared to workers ‘granted’ at $40,000 for 10 days. Why are so many blinded by this illogical comparability? For it is by no means inconceivable to attend 2 part-time jobs in one month. So just guess at the total (untaxed) income. And this is not funny. How are overtime and holidays treated if falling during those 10 working days?

In the milieu there should be other important legal requirements to be observed under the umbrella of ‘Occupational Safety and Health’, more specifically for the ‘granted employees’ amongst whom there appears to be a significant percentage of women. It may not be too superfluous a suggestion that the Labour Officers of that Ministry should check for compliance with employment laws applicable to the varying work environments to which the ‘granted’ newcomers may be subject. It must not be considered that citizens do not have the constitutional right to insist on accountability of such a financial outlay, particularly when there is no explicit evidence of ‘fruitful’ returns.

In the meantime it is interesting to observe that those recorded successful private sector organisations are condoned by the very decision-makers for hesitantly offering $60,000 per month to those that are fully employed to contribute to their boasted annual returns. What a fundamental contradiction of the enunciated philosophy of ‘human development’ albeit inconsistently repeated! This is therefore a demand for the related professional agencies, and more particularly the agents of the Private Sector, to stand up and be counted as moral equals and ask for a comprehensive register of all the ‘grant’ recipients to be laid in the National Assembly – consistent with the administration’s commitment to ‘Transparency’. All Unions should also insist on being party to such an intervention.