FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY

Dec 24, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Peeper apologises for having confused one Mr. E. B. John with my column of last Sunday. I will try my utmost today, despite being in “high spirits” to clarify the central themes and arguments of that contribution.
Unlike what Mr. E. B. John feels, the column did not detour from the initial theme concerning the acquisition of the sugar industry by the State. The acquisition aspect was the detour. It was intended to correct some revisionist history that recently surfaced. But the column did argue that whatever the shortcomings of that process it does not absolve the PPP administration from responsibility for the state the industry finds itself in today.
It also urges caution in relation to the classification of super salaries.
If the sugar industry wishes to attract the skills necessary for the efficient and profitable management of the corporation, then it has to pay salaries that are commensurate and competitive. I presumed that commensurate with skill and experience would have been implied but sometimes in Guyana you have to spell things out so as to avoid obfuscation.
While it is accepted that Guyana’s economic circumstances do not allow it to match the salaries that are paid to top executives in some other sugar producing nations, the salaries must be competitive enough to allow Guyana to attract the requisite skills. I hope I am not asked to clarify what I meant by requisite skills.
Whether the payment of a salary of $2. 5 million per month to the Chief Executive Officer can be considered super-salaried by reference to the expertise of what the incumbent brings to the corporation is a matter which the Board will have to consider as part of its review. However this columnist holds to the view that managers within the corporation need adequate remuneration.
This does not necessarily contradict the view later advanced that some benefits which are enjoyed should be done away with such as the provision of transportation for managers and, as the Peeper has now been edified, supervisors. There are other areas where some cuts can be made also. And yes, this column supports the outsourcing of medical services provided to workers.
This column does not support the three per cent across the board award, which was made by the Gobind Ganga Tribunal. This column had previously argued that if fairness and equity were two of the benchmarks on which the award was made, then there would have arisen the need to consider the individual contributions to productivity by field and factory and this consideration should have led to an award that would not be an across –the- board increase.
This column does not support the three per cent award but feels that since the award is binding on the stakeholders, that neither the government nor the Board of the Guyana Sugar Corporation can, without the consent of the managers themselves, abrogate the three per cent award. In effect, the central contention of the column of last Sunday was however ridiculous was the arbitration award, the managers are entitled to that three per cent award unless they consent to its non-payment.
Neither the Board nor the government else can frustrate the enjoyment of that award. What they can and perhaps ought to do is to review the terms and conditions of managers’ contracts when these come up for renewal.
This issue of remuneration to management must not be used as a smokescreen for the failures of the industry. In other words, the column of last Sunday argued that the management must not be made the scapegoats for the overall failure of the industry because it can be recalled that when the turnaround plan was revealed it was said that the corporation would save billions this year as a result of the changes that would be put into effect.
One would presume that a significant chunk of those savings would have accrued from the termination of the management contract held with Booker Tate. What needs to be determined, and this is something the union should investigate, is to what extent have there been savings to the corporation as a result of the termination of Booker Tate management contract.
Or have we reached a stage whereby there has been simply been a substitution of personnel who enjoy the same benefits as those of the previous expatriate managers?
Even if the latter is the case, how does one explain the situation in which the sugar corporation now finds itself whereby its cash flow is highly dependent on whether a boat arrives on time and on its ability to pay the workers the three per cent award by Christmas had to involve some deferment of payments to creditors and advances made by those who purchase our sugar?
This state of affairs is worrying, and thus, apart from the overall need to examine the profitability of the corporation, its cash flow problems suggest a terminal financial crisis.

---

---