As with much else, The Trade Union Recognition Bill is an issue of power

Jan 10, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,
Although it is now more than a decade since I, as Minister of Labour, piloted the historic Trade Union Recognition Bill through parliament, it is not unusual for legislation to be reviewed and amended after some time has elapsed, because, for example, their application has proven difficult or the context has changed.
Most of the changes proposed in the amendment under dispute have to do with practices that have proven difficult (for example, the length of time within which applications for recognition should be determined) but are of less concern and as such, will not detain me.
Where the context is concerned, this remains as contentious as when the Bill was passed in 1997. However, since then, the emergent environment has given rise to the amendments that are fueling the current quarrel.
In my opinion, if this change is not properly appreciated, the challenge confronting the trade union movement will be ill-understood and the response will consequently be inadequate.
As is well known, the primary legislation was drafted amid much suspicion and opposition, and that environment explains much of what is in the present law. Quite apart from this however, the 1990s was still a period when there were great expectations of trade union unity. A decade on however, this unity has remained as elusive as ever.
It is suggested that government machinations are responsible for keeping the trade union movement divided. Although, I believe that this is somewhat disrespectful of the thousands of working people on both sides who are best placed to decide who should represent their interests, even if this is so it does not negate the facts that the division has existed for some time, did not emanate from the PPP/C regime and shows no sign of healing.
Today there are two bodies – the GTUC and FITUG – both of which claim to represent workers at the apex level, and it is my view that the government must be in a position to deal with both.
Indeed, I have argued for some time that one apex body is not a sine qua non for the protection of workers’ rights and that it is not unknown for a country to have two apex type organisations.
Indeed, there is a body of knowledge that contends that workers’ interests are best served when there is a competitive union environment: particularly competition within the individual unions themselves.
This, it is argued, should lessen the natural oligarchic tendencies of unions and lead to greater and more meaningful workers’ participation and interest protection.
What those opposed to the amendment cannot be saying is that, notwithstanding the present reality of two apex bodies, the government must keep a piece of discriminatory legislation which favours the GTUC.
This is surely something that none of us – thinking rationally – would agree with, and very few governments will accept.
Of course, the government should deal with both bodies in an equitable manner and I suspect that herein lies a large part of the difficulty. Since those who oppose the amendment believe that the government has, if not manufactured, then at least nurtured the divide, they have little faith that the government will be even-handed. They have therefore decided to take on the government in every arena and this position is understandable once it does not ignore important parts of the picture.
The Minister should have – and has claimed that, from his standpoint, he has -consulted sufficiently. But even if those opposed to the amendment win the consultation issue in court, consultation does not mean that the Minister must change his position and thus the end result is likely to be the same.
As a result, the unions should be presently making every effort, to put in place institutional arrangements, rules and approaches, to guide the Minister in his future dealings with the two bodies. I am aware of the contention which states that, in our context, such rules will only be partial (and possibly weak) assurances that the Minister will so act. On the other hand, they could help to create an environment that eschews the existence of a discriminatory rule and opens opportunities for collaboration among the parties and possibly a road to the long sought after unity. At the end of the day though, as with much else, it is an issue of power.
Dr. Henry B. Jeffrey

Latest News

As with much else, The Trade Union Recognition Bill is an issue of power

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Rana five-for and enterprising batting put Bangladesh in the...

ANSA McAL on board with inaugural National Futsal...

GBF unveils squad for 2024 FIBA 3×3 AmeriCup...

Someash Boyer benefits from Project “Cricket...

Several athletes and coaches aiming to benefit...

GAPLF congratulates Dominic Tyrell for taking...

Features/Columnists

Morally Right. Legally wrong

Haiti: Tragically Descending into Deeper Crisis

Is the PPP anti-Guyana?

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

As with much else, The Trade Union Recognition Bill is an issue of power

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]