GAWU is not a service provider to GuySuCo

Dear Editor, The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) refers to a letter titled ‘GuySuCo is inviting sugar workers who feel misled to meet with management’ which appeared in the June 21, 2017 edition of Stabroek News. The letter, under the hand of the corporation’s Senior Communications Officer Ms Audreyanna Thomas, is seen by us as yet another public relations stunt employed by the sugar company in an effort to again denigrate our union for its unrelenting, principled stance in defending the rights of thousands who stand to be affected by the illconceived plans for the sugar industry as being advocated by the GuySuCo.

From the corporation’s letter it seems that the union-organised protests at several estates are getting under the not-too-thick skin of the corporation and its handlers. Our most recent activity at Albion on June 20, attracted an appreciable turnout and demonstrates the disagreement, shared not only by workers and their families but by the wider community, with the plans for sugar which will definitely pose severe and grave challenges to their livelihoods.

Ms Thomas, in her letter, referred to the State Paper which speaks to the continued operation of Albion, Blairmont and Uitvlugt Estates. But she does not speak about the threats to close Uitvlugt which was announced even before the ink on the State Paper had dried. Nor did she speak about the closure of LBI Estate in the latter half of 2016 on the grounds of consolidating Enmore and then the about-face a few months later when we learnt on December 31, 2016 and which was confirmed in the State Paper, that that Enmore Estate would also be closed. Such contradictory statements do not repose much confidence in the State Paper and the utterances of GuySuCo. The GuySuCo officer may recall not too long after the announcement of the Wales closure, we were informed by Guyana’s highest official that in all likelihood no more estates would be closed. Then, a few months after, we were advised that more estates needed to be closed. Obviously, credibility is seriously lacking.

Our union nevertheless is supportive of all plans which will secure the sugar industry. But at the same time we cannot lend a supporting voice to plans which will wreck lives and imperil entire communities as we have seen playing out at Wales. The Communications Officer may be interested to know that during the publicizing of our recent Albion activity we met a vendor who resides at Wales and had plied his trade at the Wales market, and who is now being forced to conduct his business at the Port Mourant market as a result of the depressing state of affairs that has gripped the communities linked to Wales Estate. He expressed his fear and apprehension should further estate closures be implemented. We ask how any right-thinking organization can offer its support to such a plan.

Ms Thomas speaks about the securing of the industry through its non-sugar diversification programme. But this aspect seems to have suffered a still-birth. As far as we are aware apart from the planting of rice in some areas of the Wales nothing else is being done. Furthermore, our anxieties in this area are heightened after we read Mr Tony Vieira’s letter which also appeared in the June 21, Stabroek News. Even the heavily promoted aquaculture venture, Ms Thomas spoke so eloquently about, had cold water thrown on it by Mr Vieira. While Ms Thomas spoke about workers being given lands to engage in agriculture production, this seems to be a pipe dream. At this time, no worker has been given any land as far as we are aware in this often touted intention which by itself poses critical questions.

The corporation, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, goes on to speak to provision of transportation and medical services to the workers and their families and pensioners. Is the company expecting the agriculture workers to join public transportation from their home at 5 am and travel to the cultivation some 5 to 10 away miles in rugged off-road terrain? We urge Ms Thomas to become acquainted with the history of the industry. Those facilities she mentioned predated GuySuCo and were not provided charitably but came into being out of the struggles of workers. Moreover, the corporation in its submission to the government in October, 2016 is seeking to cease providing medical services that have been in place for almost 65 years. It is saddening that mere days after our nation celebrated the heroism of the Enmore Martyrs that GuySuCo is obviously seeking to alter history. As far as the Weekly Production Incentive (WPI) scheme is concerned, the corporation should be ashamed to call attention to this. For the first time, probably since the scheme’s introduction over 28 years ago, no worker benefited from any WPI incentive during the just concluded 2017 first crop.

On the strikes in the industry, we reiterate that the majority of the strikes are confined to workers in a gang and are not all industry-wide as the corporation seeks to paint it. Most of the strikes are related to price disputes that arise from suboptimal field conditions, and which are deemed legitimate in keeping with the agreement between GAWU and GuySuCo. Interestingly, price dispute strikes pre-dated GAWU’s presence in the industry. Ms Thomas went on to refer to 150 strikes in 2016 but does not say that mandays lost by strikes were the third lowest between 2001 and 2016. We ask GuySuCo: doesn’t it find it paradoxical that whilst the rate of unemployment is steadily growing it has a difficulty attracting workers? Two years of no pay increases; shortchanged API in 2015 and no API in 2016; the arbitrary cutting down of workers’ benefits; present and potential threats of closures

have certainly not been helpful in the company’s cause in its recruitment drive. We note too the reference to $17M lost daily as a result of strikes; that figure was also quoted in a whole page ad that appeared under the hand of ‘Concerned Guyanese’ in the June 15, 2017 Kaieteur News. It seems the plot is thickening.

We take serious umbrage to GuySuCo’s view that the GAWU is engaged in sabotage. This is completely unfounded and a figment of someone’s imagination. The necessity of “customs and practices” is also questioned by the corporation. Its reference, in our view, points to continued efforts to withdraw long established practices which have evolved over the years and are reflective of the unique nature of the operations in the sugar industry. Moreover, the corporation also seems to question the wisdom of the workers’ protest actions. But wouldn’t any rational person whose livelihood is threatened take a similar approach? Ms Thomas and her colleagues ensconced in the comforts of the GuySuCo hierarchy would sing a different tune had the shoe been on the other foot.

In passing, Ms Thomas needs to be reminded that workers and the tax-paying public are still awaiting an account of the big sums of money given to GuySuCo in 2015, 2016 and this year, with no showing of any noticeable or tangible results.

It’s quite befuddling that when the company’s intent is to lower even the current low production to 147,000 tonnes per year, it speaks of its efforts to increase production and productivity in sugar. GuySuCo seems to be in a haze of confusion.

GuySuCo says it will demand very soon a “higher level” of service from GAWU. But such a call is best suited to GuySuCo. For instance, we have seen press reports of the intended expenditure of $1.5B of what is styled the Uitvlugt Estate Improvement Programme (UEIP) and the intention to produce 40,000 tonnes sugar by 2020 concerning which neither the union nor the workers of Uitvlugt have been engaged and remain clueless about at this point in time.

We wish to caution Ms Thomas that our union is working and will continue to work in the interest of our members. We are not a vendor or service provider to GuySuCo that the corporation can seek us to provide them (GuySuCo) with better quality service. It seems the corporation wishes to go back to the days of company unionism. We wish to advise the GuySuCo that that ship has long sailed.

GAWU wishes to assure Ms Thomas that it will continue to appropriately respond in defending and safeguarding the interests of our members and to inform the public about the grave dangers that lurk from the plans for sugar at all possible forums. Yours faithfully, Seepaul Narine General Secretary GAWU