UG union, Staff Association have done well to reject imposed increases

Dear Editor, It is interesting that the admittedly critical debate about the management and maintenance of the Berbice River Bridge would appear to have distracted the attention of relevant parties from the immediate imbroglio involving the administration of the University of Guyana on the one hand, and UG Workers’ Union and UG Senior Staff Association on the other.

Neither FITUG, the TUC, nor their more vocal individual spokespersons seemed to have paid any heed to the plight of their comrades, initially enumerated in SN of 13 November, 2018, as follows:

- Failed attempts at negotiating a range of matters since February, 2018.

- Failure to agree to the process of conciliation at the Department of Labour/Ministry of Social Protection.

- The Unions’ charge of the UG’s administration failure to brief the University’s Council on the financial status of the institution.

- The reported inability of the Unions to have their concerns placed on the agenda for Council’s discussion; and the allegedly deliberate absence of the ViceChancellor which thwarted discussion at ‘an Extraordinary Meeting on October 3rd’.

- The Unions reportedly declaring that ‘these actions by the administration therefore amount to a complete refusal to engage with the workers of the University on matters that are important to them’.

Longstanding as it has been, it remains an interesting construct in which a Worker Union is partnered with a Staff Association to pursue what appear to be identical interests, a situation which seems to bypass the management/managed relationship which normally obtains in organisations.

Notwithstanding, intricated in the discourse is the attitude displayed by the Vice Chancellor – in particular in SN’s issue of 15 November, 2018, indicative of ‘negotiations’ on his terms only, i.e. ‘In terms of a) Salary increases and b) Wage negotiations any discussion on salary increases have to be done in the context of performance, including the times at which grades are submitted, as well as staff’s overall performance’ .

First of all, it is clear that the commentary could not refer to the Workers’ Union. Next, it is unclear to which categories of staff, reference to the delivery of ‘grades’ is being made.

And while it may be unfair to enquire of the elements that make up ‘overall performance’, there is that suggestion of confusion between increments payable, based on an effective performance appraisal system, and ‘salary increases’ as negotiated.

A performance management system, if it exists, could not possibly be implemented by any one executive. It demands a cohesive team effort. Nor is the negotiation of more basic compensation increases similarly exclusive. In this regard one must wonder whether the expertise resides in a sole arbiter.

What then is the role of the Council, assuming that there is no other Compensation Management mechanism? However, the latter was in fact identified in SN’s report of 17 November, 2018 – it is the Finance and General Purposes Committee, who reportedly unanimously approved the (Vice-Chancellor’s) request for salary increases at the rate of:

- 3% for all eligible academic staff (would be helpful to learn who consist of the ineligibles) - 4% for all eligible support staff (More ‘ineligibles’) The above reflects a rather arbitrary approach to the conduct of sensitive human relations. From the latter perspective the administration’s behaviour implies at least disrespect for colleague academics who should be seen as equals. One can only detect an abrasiveness in the relationship which obtains across the job hierarchy.

More importantly, however, is how such behaviour speaks to the student body, and more particularly to those deemed ‘ineligible’.

From the discourse it has to be presumed that there may be little organised study in Public Management or Industrial Relations, for certainly principles identified therein would have been substantively transgressed by the non-negotiable style attributed to the hierarchy of decision-makers – an example irreconcilable with whatever is taught at this institution.

But the fall-out spreads across the wider spectrum of human resources management. Fellow practitioners must be concerned about the construct, methodology and efficacy of the Performance Management System obtaining at the University of Guyana, if at all existing.

For starters, should not the Heads of Faculty/Department be held accountable for the shortfall in delivery by their respective teams? Or is it that they are ‘ineligibles’?

Alas, in the final analysis, the Union and Staff Association together have done well to retain their selfrespect and reject the imposed increases. Yours faithfully, E.B. John