GuySuCo is marred by poor leadership

Jan 10, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
On 25th June 2001, President Jagdeo signed an MOU with the World Bank, on the Government of Guyana Modernization Strategy and policy framework for the sugar sector.
One of the issues, Investment in Demerara, it was agreed that the Government will limit the investments in the factories to only routine operations maintenance and in the fields to expenditure needed to achieve agriculture productivity gains. On the 2nd July yet another MOU Guyana Poverty Reduction Support Credit Agreement on Actions for the Sugar Sector was signed by the then Minister of Finance Sasenarine Kowlessar and the World Bank, which was based on recommendations by LCM. The Government of Guyana agreed to pursue policy actions to reduce labour cost from the then 54% to 43% of total recurrent costs by the end of 2006. Our Government agreed to support this labour reduction through attrition rate of 3% for three years from 2001 — 2002 and voluntary separation of an additional 500 workers over a three-year period.
A multitude of other points were also agreed to, but with labour made the theme of the current brouhaha it is important that we attempt an understanding of what has shaped the polices of the industry and what is the role of the board and management in all of this. When the current crisis is juxtaposed with the undertaking of the Government eight years after agreeing with the World Bank, it is a national disgrace.
If the company agreed to a labour reduction plan with the World Bank then how is it that in 2010 labour is still forwarded as the reasons for the current inability to harvest cane. GuySuCo on the 28th December 2010 reported that it still has 500,000 tonnes of cane to be harvested is laughable to those who understand sugar, because it cannot be verified. The last two years has seen the non-achievement of the planned targets when all the canes were harvested what has GuySuCo done so phenomenonally last year that they have so much cane that they cannot harvest it? We are misled to believe that this problem raised its head in 2010 only.
If we are guided by all the paper work signed on our behalf by the Government of Guyana on the sugar sector, then it is clear that there was never a plan to back the Government’s bravery in signing the agreement with the World Bank, for nothing was ever done that presented tangible results. The sugar company is going to the next crop 2011 and Guyanese should not be optimistic, for the current crisis will repeat itself , there has been no plans for the labour fallout since 2001.
As GAWU recently pointed out there has to be some muddle headed person/s behind the scenes. The logics that the board and management do not understand and have now created the impression that they are clueless. Why are you planting cane with no one to reap it and no machines intervention for harvesting in the other estates besides Skeldon? Labour is still a critical factor in the absence of machines and GuySuCo has not demonstrated that it has a response. So this year we shall sing the same “suhani raat” and run to the President for bail out. On 5th December 2008 Mr. Tony Vieira called for a bipartisan national inquiry into Skeldon 2 and pointed out then it will not be possible to harvest all of Skeldon cane.
GuySuCo’s planning is backward to say the least, taxpayers’ money squandered in the name of political “insurgency” plain and simple. This fact is evident in the current leadership which is operating in crisis management mode, manifested in the absence of astute leadership.
The threat to de-recognise GAWU has grossly demonstrated this point and leaves one to conclude that there is more that one muddle headed person in the driving seat. This act alone demonstrates that leadership is not only absent, it is in a state of disorder. The chairman claims it is a tactic employed by management and the board, while Mr. Ramotar said the board has nothing to do with it. This act requires the sacking of the Chariman, the CE, DCE and the Human Resources Director of GuySuCo, for somebody lied and lied big time.
This de-recognition threat seems to be redolent with picks of the past weeks from what was said by the President about the leadership of the union when he met with sugar workers at the Convention Centre. It was broadcast and reported by all the major dailies. GuySuCo is probably the only company in the world where leadership is not synonymous with sound educational back ground.
Sugar as political as it is , there has to be some degree of sensibility in the decision making for the manifestation of the current actions are demonstrating that reasoning is becoming extraneous to the national culture.
Mr. Ram in analysing the 2008 annual report of GuySuCo in a series of articles from March through May of this year, made an important point in May 2nd 2010 article that has been overlooked by many, “when the story of GuySuCo is told”, he wrote, “the cost of political decisions will rank far higher than the cost of labour. The DCE a hurried appointment in 2009 with no experience or expertise in sugar or high level management is unlikely to display the skills indicative of a capability of moving up”.
The appointment of the FD as CE ahead of the DCE proved Mr. Ram absolutely correct. This was a political appointment. If people are decent enough to give up their positions knowing that they cannot contribute meaningfully to the business then it will be an act of utmost professionalism. We will see who are professional enough to do this.
The much talked about and least seen “blueprint” also supports the lacklustre position of management and the board in the appointment of an agriculture advisor to assist in the return to good practices where a current serving board member was appointed to that position, it does stink Mr. Editor.
These are all pointing to a fact that leadership is absent in GuySuCo. To further prove this point one has to simply look at the decision made on the Skeldon Factory. When Booker Tate’s contract was terminated who took over the leadership/advisory role of the factory? This is a key question that requires an answer in asserting the future of Skeldon. There was once mention made of a Harry Morar from Tate and Lyle whose advice has since faded and the two expatriates that he recommended to work at Skeldon have been unable to make an impact.
A US$13 million boiler blew up at Skedon and accepted as normal by Minister and the Board of GuySuCo. Two years and a punt dumper cannot be fixed. Do we have the right persons at Skeldon and those advising Skeldon? The Government is investing heavily in the sugar industry, there are no doubts about that, but it is marred by poor leadership. The
Government and the Board has to come off the mantra of super salaried person, maybe not paying well is probably one of the causes for us been where we are. Chairman Gopaul in his press conference to address the de-recognition tactic said all the super salaried persons have been fired, but he forgot the DCEe and the two expatriates in Skeldon.
When the President meets with the workers again, he needs to make a hard but educated analysis of the leadership of the industry and some decisions need to be made.
Rohit Parmanand

---

---