Is KN supportive of the transgressions by RUSAL, BCGI, and Govt.?

Feb 22, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Unless otherwise stated, a newspapers’ editorial reflects the thinking of the owner(s).

Reference is made to the February 7, 2010 Kaieteur News’ Editorial, “Prospects of Bauxite” which depicts a position that is untenable in a society grappling with issues of failing democracy, rising dictatorial practices and everyday infringement on the rule of law, good governance, fundamental human rights and dignity. The role of the media in liberation struggles and struggles for equality and justice is well documented.

Kaieteur News having earned a favoured position among the readership of this nation should at least upkeep its role as watchdog of the nation unless it is serving as an oppressive arm of an authoritarian regime.

The editorial under review reflects a noticeable departure from a media “watch-dog role.” One would hope that this was an oversight and the unacknowledged views of a guest editorial; otherwise, clearly Kaieteur News’ Publisher and Editor are expressing views that are anti-workers’ rights, which include the Right to Collective Bargaining.

Further, it would seem that Kaieteur News, as represented in this editorial is supportive of the transgressions by RUSAL, BCGI, and the Guyana Government against Bauxite workers in support of a foreign company’s profitability at the expense of Guyanese labour. One must question the benefit of said editorial and any surreptitious intent.

Lumping RUSAL and Bosai together without mentioning that the companies produce different quality products and sell to different markets, shows the shortcoming in the analysis as these are important considerations. BCGI produces products for the steel and aluminum markets, whereas Bosai produces products for the refractory market. The argument that bauxite had “seismic changes” in production and marketing from the 1970s lacks validity. Records would reveal that the state owned bauxite industry sold every ton of bauxite it produced up to 1992. BERMINE also has a record of selling all the bauxite it produced.

The problem with marketing began in 1993, specifically with Linden, when MINPROC took a decision, with the support of the PPP Government, to cut Linden production level by half. This led to the contracting of sales, which forced the consumers to seek alternative sources to satisfy their demands. Some analysts would argue that this artificial marketing decline was self-inflicted sabotage with an agenda driven by the Government of Guyana and we see culminating today in open aggression towards bauxite workers and bauxite communities.

I, Lincoln Lewis, call it economic genocide, for clearly the intention is to destroy the economic sustenance of a section of the Guyanese society.

For public edification, Berbice bauxite (metallurgical) was sold to Russia since the 1970s. This bauxite has always been used as a “sweetener” to enhance the production performance of Russian Ukraine plants, which RUSAL now owns. The only other similar specification bauxite is produced in neighbouring Brazil and owned by Alcoa. There is an interdependency with RUSAL and Guyana and not a relationship where Guyana has little or no value. This value seems to be underplayed by Kaieteur News editorial and recently by President Jagdeo.

The reference to China being the “elephant in the room” is obviously misrepresented in the context of refractory bauxite because China never pushed Guyana out of the market.

Faulty editorial analysis which dares to imply what must be the stand for the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union is therefore unacceptable. Evidently the editorial is a far cry from understanding the issues. Further the said editorial relegates the struggle for increased/just wages and safe working conditions as “workers indiscipline.”

This is in itself is an unjust and insensitive statement which ignores the unlawful act and violations of workers’ rights and labour laws. It is done by a company, aided and supported by the PPP Government, which is forcing workers to settle for less than a fair day’s pay, safe working conditions that every worker of this land, and not just sugar workers, is entitled to. The trade union philosophy is: Workers’ rights are first and foremost. This is mirrored in nation building efforts where a nation’s people are paramount over building, machinery and the satisfaction of a foreign company.

It would be recognised that RUSAL has failed to honour an agreement it entered into with the Guyana Government for there was no global recession when RUSAL took the decision not to develop mines as agreed. This is a breach of contract. If the writer of the editorial is genuinely committed to Guyana’s economic development this betrayal to Guyanese should have been addressed.

It should be our collective concern that Guyana is the only country where its proven bauxite deposit is owned and controlled by two foreign companies. This is not a lease but the selling out of our non renewable resources with Government seemingly wanting to complement this by undermining the value of Guyanese labour for the benefit of these foreign companies and foreign nations. That it is predominantly one section of the Guyanese labour force should not stop all from condemning this transgression.

The ill-founded view by some sections in this society that workers must be the ones making sacrifices based on an unproven case of a company’s profitability is ridiculous. Those who believe that the GB&GWU is wrong to demand increased wages and better working conditions are urged to tell this nation what has been BCGI’s contribution to RUSAL 2009 reported net profit of no less than US$434 million.

They must first ask RUSAL/BCGI to open its books to the union and the citizens of this country. After all, the product that they exploit is the property of every Guyanese and not the PPP Government. The land and earnings belong to every Guyanese and all must benefit with workers of these plants being able to earn a decent living and safe conditions of work thus minimizing the need for conflict and protests.

The act of prescribing how the union must behave given the fact that the union is operating consistent with conventions, laws and the Collective Labour Agreement, and has not breached any industrial or national law is tantamount to taking away workers’ rights. It is an attempted reversal to slavery when the rights of slaves were unheard of and society accepted the exploitation of one group by another for economic benefit.

Kaieteur News editorial portrays a sadness that is constant with the demonization of a section of the Guyanese society; of persons and groups who are being denied an opportunity to speak out against the violation of their rights and demand for justice.

This position, where the aggrieved should grovel for what is rightly theirs, has become the strategy of the oppressor supported by agents and transmitters such as s/he who dared to transmit this eye-pass as an editorial for public consumption. This is only possible in a society where consumers are not a force to reckon with. Nonetheless, it must stop!

The trade union has a legitimate responsibility to define its role and course of action. No one who does not feel the workers’ pain will be allowed to define it for them. Not for the workers of the Bauxite industry!

Lincoln Lewis

 

---

---