The position of the sugar unions is untenable

Nov 17, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I write to lament recent statements emanating from the two union’s representing sugar workers and their stance on the current wages and salaries negotiations with the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
It is indeed sad that despite the industry crumbling around them, they literally remain perched on their hill of self indulgence on the presumption that their cause of fighting for the working class is morally superior and will always find favour with the masses.
What they fail to understand is something that has been occurring right before their very eyes and that is a gradual shift in public opinion as illustrated across the media landscape since the latter part of last year, regarding the state of the industry and the role those responsible for its revival are currently playing.
The Corporation and its management have come in for their fair share of criticism, some justly and others completely baseless, far-fetched and/or irrelevant to the industry.
It is clear that the implementation of several programmes and projects to improve efficiency and increase production have all experienced setbacks of one kind or another. This would be a reality for any Corporation with the financial challenges as that of GuySuCo and it is actually amazing that they have managed to sustain and make positive gains on these initiatives, given the challenges inclusive of labour and weather.
Both unions have made statements about labour being the most important element in the industry, albeit apparently only ‘their labour’ and not the many other thousands of workers who contribute in one way or another towards the sugar industry.
Quick question for those unions though, when other industries around the world are faced with financial challenges, which area was the first to be affected? Yes, labour!
The unions have been hedging the Corporation’s regard for its labour force to the wages and salaries increases offered. But this is an extremely flawed position, as with all its publicized problems the Corporation has somehow managed to maintain its labour force and I have even seen it robustly encouraging workers to improve on their turnout.
This is in itself, testament to the Corporation’s commitment towards its labour force and the fact that despite these major hurdles it has found a way to somehow maintain jobs and offer an increase to workers; it is nothing short of amazing that the unions could maintain their old and outdated posture.
NAACIE in its call for the implementation of a separate agreement, which I am told will in some cases dramatically increase the salaries of its members, was quoted as expressing hope that good sense will prevail and GuySuCo would reconsider its position. Is NAACIE in its good sense? Even if such an agreement was made in good faith, any Corporation in such a situation will be forced to put that on a back burner and deal with the present reality. You cannot pay what you do not have.
I was told that even the retroactive three per cent paid to workers in 2009 and API were only possible after the Corporation was successful in securing several loans. And this was done because of the unconscionable stance taken by the unions and their membership and the force brought to bear on the industry by their incessant strikes.
They were aware that the Corporation was forced to borrow then, but when the Corporation laments its debt burden now as it did then, the unions claim that it is no business of their and continue their traditional rhetoric ‘bad management’.
It is nothing short of amazing that such irresponsible behavior could
continue from such major stakeholders in the industry.
In apparently racing to see which could outdo the other in their quest for relevancy, GAWU in its archaic saber rattling stated that the increases proposed were no increase at all; maintained that the increases must relate to the year alone and not go into next year (GuySuCo had suggested to extend the crop into 2011 to give workers a realistic chance to make the target and in doing so achieve the maximum increase) and said it is too late in the year to make such a proposal.
Now first of all, while the increases proposed by the Corporation are not ideal (as I would dearly love too see workers benefitting from a 15 per cent increase) it has to be taken into context of what is happening with the industry, local economy and world affairs. They are all related and the result is what has been unfolding over the past few years. The mere fact that workers are being offered something is an achievement within itself. Now where do the unions expect the Corporation to generate this additional revenue from to provide the increases, if not from the sugar that is produced?
Workers should jump at the opportunity at the concession by the Corporation to extend the crop into next year, as it means more opportunity days to work and additional earnings. In normal circumstances this would have been the out of crop period, which meant that the services of the harvesters were not required, apart from those who would benefit from alternative work.
And it gives them an ideal opportunity to achieve the maximum target of 270,000 tonnes and as a result benefit from the five per cent increase. Both parties stand to benefit here, as achieving the target means the Corporation will be afforded a little breathing space as it continues to overcome its financial challenges and workers will also benefit.
Instead, GAWU is rejecting this proposal altogether and wants the increases to be confined only to production for this year. Well, if the union wants to hedge an increase to production this year alone, it is clear that no increases will be forthcoming based on the current reality.
Refusing additional days for work means that the union knows something the general public does not, these workers are apparently not that worse off if they could afford to refuse an opportunity to make additional money.
This is a very strange position and the public needs to start holding both union’s and their membership accountable as it does the Corporation, because in the end they are all responsible for either the success or failure of the sugar industry in Guyana.
Name and Address Provided

---

---