Bauxite and sugar workers are not being treated equitably

Jun 04, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Response is made to the mis-representations in Prime Minister Samuel Hinds’ letter, “Bauxite workers and sugar workers are being treated equitably” (SN 25/5/2011).
The issue before us is not only the amount of government spending, but what such spending goes toward and whether in the process the rights of workers are being respected.
The PM was a former miner and holds the portfolio of subject minister. Rather than providing leadership and support to the industry and community that sustained him for years he has opted to be a leading architect in its undermining, denying workers their rights, and presiding over the deprivations in their communities.
It is important that Hinds be reminded of the rehabilitation plan developed by Linmine management which was discarded by this administration.
Linmine management was seeking US$14M for the company’s rehabilitation. When it approached the government for support it refused to offer same which subsequently led to the decline in the operation.
This instigated decline presented an excuse for the government to sell the company to the Canadian based Cambior for US$1.00.
Around the same time sugar was given over US$200M towards its rehabilitation and has since been receiving millions of US dollars to this effect.
The PM displays of statistical “assistance” to bauxite workers to showcase what he calls government equity towards bauxite and sugar are misleading. His reference of government injecting money into the Bauxite Workers’ Saving Scheme and Pension Plan failed to admit such injections were not handouts.
In both instances the money was the company honouring its liability to the workers by meeting its repayment of the workers’ contributions to their plans.
After this was done the government then moved to disband both plans.
On the other hand when the Sugar Workers Pension Plan was experiencing financial difficulties the government instructed GuySuCo to put millions into the plan to ensure it retains solvency to guarantee sugar workers a pension on retirement.
These are clear instances where money was used in furtherance of breaking up bauxite workers’ benefit plans and denying them their rights as against money being injected to ensure the solvency of sugar workers’ plan and respecting their right to a pension.
Hinds is reminded that PAYE and NIS are earnings based, not “assistance” given. As the employee’s NIS percentage increases and/or income increases there would be corresponding impact on deductions and receipts.
PAYE is 33.3% after the free pay and comes directly from the employees’ earnings. For NIS payments have been employee 4.4% and employer 6.6%, later increasing to 4.8% employee and 7.2% employer.
And in instances where the employer fails to make deduction prior to paying wages, or fails to submit/remit same along with his corresponding co-payment his is the responsibility to shoulder such legal obligation.
On retrenchment and severance pay these were not gifts or “assistance” given to workers, they were informed by a formula negotiated between the union and company.
In this instance the workers did not voluntary leave employment, they were put on the breadline by the government, whose obligation it becomes to compensate them for the economic dislocation.
It is therefore surprising these facts and legal obligations escaped the PM’s thought processes. Or was he hoping he could throw around numbers, utter nice sounding words, and get away with misleading the public?
On 1st December 2009 the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc(BCGI) said it has with immediate effect terminated the Collective Labour Agreement with the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU).
Since then the company has made efforts to arbitrarily de-recognise the Union which has been given government tacit support with its constant attacks on the rights of bauxite workers and their union and its refusal to enforce the labour laws.
Comparatively, in 2011 when GuySuCo management threatened to de-recognise GAWU the government appropriately responded saying that such de-recognition will not happen under its watch.
In June 2010 bauxite workers were involved in a major industrial accident that led to loss of life and serious injuries yet almost one year after the government still refuses to engage GB&GWU and BCGI to conduct an inquiry. Last week an Enmore sugar worker died, having sustained an industrial accident one week prior, and in this instance the government has done the correct thing in respecting the right to life and is moving to get GuySuCo to partner with GAWU to put systems in place to conduct a workplace inquiry, which would hopefully avert future crisis for workers.
According to the PM “from his overview – with many details provided – of the recent industrial incidents in the Aroaima –Kwakwani bauxite area, Prime Minister is wondering whether he is not seeing patterns of behaviour reminiscent of the 1960s and early 1970s, unacceptable patterns of behaviour which were tolerated, if not encouraged, then, in the run-up to nationalization shortly after independence.”
This is a very telling statement of admittance by the PM that workers’ rights in the 60s and 70s were respected as against now when they are deemed “unacceptable.” Readers are reminded of the age old tactic of the oppressor where he hides behind and justifies his oppression by deeming “unacceptable” any action by the masses for their self advancement or resistance to his tyranny. These said behaviours he today considers “unacceptable” were respected, supported and utilised by him in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s as a miner and politician.
In the workplace said actions saw him being the recipient of increased income and improved working conditions. As a politician it saw him securing the position as PM and caused him to take the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution without fear, favour or ill-will. And while he wears the cap as PM, and is being paid as a servant of the people, he must be held accountable to upholding his oath.
These are a few examples of the inequities which expose the mis-representations in the PM’s letter. It is evidently clear the government places emphasis on violating bauxite workers’ rights as seen in its refusal to enforce the labour laws; disrespect for their right to life; and denying them the right to work, a pension, freedom of association, collective bargaining and prosperity. Such violations negatively impact the workers, their families, communities and country as a whole. Conversely the government continues, consistent with the Constitution, to uphold sugar workers’ right to work, a pension, choice, life, and freedom of association, collective bargaining; all of which correspondingly have better impact on the workers, their families and communities.
These inequities, injustices and lopsided approach to development must be brought to an end.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---