Government and the GPSU

The PPP/C has no qualms about breaking the law and certainly no qualms about contravening international conventions to which the government is signatory if it perceives it is in its interest to do so. And so it is with the labour laws. When previously in office the ruling party had for many years imposed a wage increase of around five per cent on public servants, without engaging in collective bargaining as it was required to do. Before acceding to office APNU+AFC had promised not only meaningful wage increases to public servants but had also undertaken to bring itself into line with the requirements of the labour law. To its eternal discredit, when in government it did neither, opting to follow the route of its predecessor and impose wage and salary hikes.

In November last year Public Service Minister Sonia Parag gave this newspaper what must be the most feeble excuse known to the world of labour for not following through with the bargaining process, saying the government was “pressed for time.” Apparently after beginning consultations with the Public Service Union, the matter of the GOAL scholarships diverted the supposedly overworked Minister’s attention, and so a seven per cent increase in wages and salaries was imposed. It would be a rare fantasist who would believe that that was not the intention all along.

And so we come to this year. There has been not a peep out of Ms Parag about public sector wages and salaries, and certainly no moves towards collective bargaining. A few days ago the President himself gave an address to his “Fellow Guyanese”, the purpose of which was to announce an eight per cent increase for public servants, teachers, members of the disciplined services, constitutional office holders and government pensioners. As has become customary this has been backdated to January 1st, 2022.

It has always been the tradition to announce these imposed rises a while before Christmas, because that is when employees are most in need of money and least likely to resort to industrial action at any level. They will just be grateful for the extra cash, and, the government hopes, regard it in a benign light. In any case, since the administration has been getting away with this for so long, the habit has become entrenched.

President Ali also indulged in all kinds of irrelevancies to the specific public service issue in his speech, including public assistance, cash grants to the parents of school-age children, an increase in the minimum wage in the private sector, removing the excise tax on fuel, etc. In short, the public servants’ wage increase was part of what he called the resolute commitment of government “to ensuring that the lives of all Guyanese are improved steadily, and in a tangible and demonstrable manner, as we work towards realising national prosperity for the benefit of all Guyanese.” That said he did not forget to men

tion that “my government continues to value highly the hard work that government employees do every day in delivering services to the people of Guyana.”

Not enough, it seems, to be in consonance with the law where collective bargaining is concerned. Section 23(1) of the Trade Union Recognition Act of 1997 states “Where a trade union obtains a certificate of recognition for workers comprised in a bargaining unit in accordance with this Part, the employer shall recognize the union, and the union and the employer shall bargain in good faith and enter into negotiation with each other for the purpose of collective bargaining.”

Inevitably the GPSU yet again registered its opposition to the government’s approach, alluding to the fact that it was “in conflict with the Constitution and Laws of Guyana, International Labour Organisation core Conventions and the Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Principles of Workers and the legally binding Collective Labour Agreements between the Guyana Public Service Union and the Government of Guyana. It is also in conflict with all guiding principles of any organization that has working class credentials.” It might be remarked that the government’s working class credentials have not been much in evidence for many years.

The question is why does the government consistently refuse to engage the GPSU in wage negotiations, breaking the law in the process? The first thing to be said is that the majority of public servants are, rightly or wrongly, perceived by Freedom House as belonging to the opposition camp, and therefore not committed to what a PPP/C government wants them to do. Certainly at the higher levels of the service, the administration in the past would hire its own chosen personnel on contract as advisors, paying them well above the standard salary scale. It has never committed to a serious attempt to professionalise the public service, and as such it remains part of the politicisation process which has so inhibited the progress of this country.

The second thing is that the PPP/C, and, for that matter the union, never recovered from the Public Service Union strike of 1999. It lasted almost two months, after the government had offered a 4.6% increase to public servants, when the GPSU had asked for 40%. There had been various negotiations prior to that, and Dr Cheddi Jagan had intervened before he died, but an absence of compromise and the delaying tactics of government eventually led to the strike. The union was particularly alarmed when it heard that the IMF wanted only a three per cent

increase for its members.

For some reason the government miscalculated and persuaded itself that it could withstand the strike, since it would not last very long. However, it only came to an end after a prolonged 57 days through the mediation of the private sector, which had suffered serious collateral consequences to its operations, not to mention its profits. Under the agreement which brought the strike to an end, the matter went to arbitration and the public servants secured fairly generous payouts, although in the event not all elements of the accord were implemented.

The net result of this was that the government would not negotiate again with the GPSU, particularly, perhaps, under Mr Patrick Yarde, while the membership lost confidence in the leadership of the union because of what Mr Yarde later called untrue rumours. It has also been claimed that the shootings by the police at the wharves in the early days of the strike undermined confidence, although it has to be said that the industrial action nevertheless persisted. Whatever the case, the GPSU could not bring members out on strike thereafter, and the government knew this and felt confident acting unilaterally.

We are now seemingly in this new, cosy era of ‘One Guyana’, yet still the President wants to bypass all those institutions and agencies with which the administration is at odds, not to mention denigrate its critics. In practice what this means is that times have not changed. A government is obliged to abide by the law, and deal with persons and institutions whether it likes them or not, and whether they are loyal to it or not.

The GPSU has recently changed its tactics and in September filed suit against the government for what it says is its refusal to engage in collective bargaining, calling the administration’s 7% increase across the board for public servants last year, arbitrary and unlawful. The government’s position apparently is that “there is no obligation for consultation” in relation to increasing the pay of public servants. The public now waits to see how the court will rule.