Worker participation vis-à-vis better industrial relations

Apr 19, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

There is some uneasiness in the sugar and bauxite industries, industries that at one time mounted a unified national front against colonial hegemony; and subsequently allied in political solidarity to withstand local political excesses. We can still turn things around today for the good of Guyana.

Some years ago, my book Workers’ Participation in Management was published as the XIIIth Monograph in the series “Sociological Publications in Honour of Dr. K. Ishwaran.” Dr. Ishwaran was then a Professor at York University, Toronto, Canada. And Dr. Michael Poole of Cardiff Business School, University of Wales College of Cardiff was the Issue Editor for this Monograph, and who also wrote the Foreword.

The study which this book disseminated was conducted during the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) era; the book addressed the growth of industrial democracy in Guyana. The investigation focused on problems affecting workers’ participation in this country; underscoring this focus was the PNC regime’s politically-insecure base which created some semblance of worker participation.

Worker participation has roots in the socialist tradition But the then PNC Government experienced a crisis in legitimacy, and carried a minion status vis-à-vis dependence, mistrust, and conflict, contradictory to the growth of socialist-rooted schemes.

In a system of worker participation, the concept of power is vital, for we cannot sufficiently explain growth in worker participation without referencing far-reaching questions on the exercise of power and democracy in industry and society. Democracy at the national level had no real life during the ruling PNC years. If that were so, how then could democracy have significance at the level of the workplace?

Under these circumstances, it was necessary to review the level of political and managerial commitment to worker participation, and the types of management/worker relations, thereby underscoring the real PNC regime’s ideology.

Within worker participation, power, either, the two groups (management and workers) have to share power, or there could be the transfer of total power to workers. Under the latter conditions, management may have to concede power; nonetheless, in the former case, management and workers may exercise joint consultation and decision making.

The book also addressed the question as to whether managers truly wielded power, and in effect, whether managers in fact formulated significant operational policies at the workplace. The section on the relationship between power and social development attempts to answer the question about who wielded power: ruling politicians, managers, or works councils?

Dr. Michael Poole in the Foreword notes: “Gradually researchers in developing countries are piecing together the necessary data to underpin an informed analysis of these experiences. Moreover, as Prem Misir notes, in countries as diverse as India, Mauritania, Pakistan, Algeria, and Jamaica, a variety of schemes have been introduced…the main conclusion of Prem Misir’s study is that the latent power of the work force remains crucial to effective participation…That is to say, a combination of governmental policies, coupled with chronic problems of employment, foreign exchange and inadequate development have substantially impeded progress toward industrial democracy in Guyana.”

And the General editor Dr. K.Gurumurthy explains: “The data on which Dr. Misir works out his analysis is based upon his personal fieldwork…his ethnographic notes on the meetings between workers and managers, workers and supervisors, supplemented by analysis of records of proceedings of several such meetings and commission reports.”

This research on worker participation came at a time when there was an authoritarian government. The abuse of political power then reduced the motivation and productive capacity of Guyanese workers; and a reduced quality of life pervaded all areas of society, generating a culture of economic and social stagnation. This was a time in Guyana when poverty and alienation were so socially invasive that a person’s self-esteem and general social development gradually became zero.

Revisiting and reintroducing genuine worker participation today, that is, giving workers an opportunity to make decisions, would confer upon the workplace a new meaning; boosting workers’ self-esteem and increase motivation at work. The bottom line is that Guyana will see a resurgence of interest in productivity, production, and good worker-management relations. This schema of things is urgent for Guyana today, as the Gross Domestic product needs to graduate to a higher level, if Guyana is to see any real development.

Nonetheless, constant bickering by both management and workers in both industries and battling their causes in the mass media are not the way to go.

In the end, any introduction of real worker participation would inflate worker’s motivation; and industrial relations, under such conditions, would be better than what currently prevails.

Prem Misir

---

---