The Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Committee no longer provides a relevant service

Dec 07, 2013 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
The Sugar Industry Special Funds Act of 1947 related to the: i) Sugar Industry Rehabilitation Fund; ii) Sugar Industry Price Stabilisation Fund; iii) Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund. All of the above were governed by respective Regulations.
The initial allocations to the three Funds were:
· Price Stabilisation Fund – levied at $6.00 for every ton of sugar produced.
· Rehabilitation Fund –    levied at $4.80 for every ton of sugar produced.
· Labour Welfare Fund –     levied at $2.40 for every ton of sugar produced.
Simply, the Price Stabilisation Fund was intended to supplement the price of sugar at times of poor market conditions. The objective of utilising the Rehabilitation Fund for factories never really materialised.
As it turned out most of the accretions from the aforementioned Funds were transferred to the Labour Welfare Fund, which is still today managed by the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Committee – consisting of representatives of the single employer, GuySuCo, and the recognised unions in the sugar industry: GAWU and NAACIE.
The Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Act generated a programme of social development in the sugar industry long before the concept of ‘corporate social responsibility’ was promoted in the late 20th century.
While similar legislation was promulgated throughout the sugar growing territories of the West Indies, its implementation was effected most conscientiously in British Guiana.
Estate managements served as agents of the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Committee (SILWFC), who respectively financed, and organised the massive infrastructural development undertaken across the sugar communities. But villages with predominant sugar worker populations never benefitted from the Fund at any time.
The programme was aimed principally at rehousing sugar workers from logies to new communities then called Extra Nuclear Areas, which years later, became integrated into the formal local government systems, which required the ‘new’ residents to pay rates and taxes for the first time – catching up with their counterparts in the villages who were being taxed since the nineteenth century.
By the late 1970s close to 12,000 transactions had been effected.
Over time the programme saw, in addition to houses,  sinking of efficient wells for water supply, the erection of Community Centres and Girls’ Clubs (with their own electrical generating capacity) where drama was introduced and national competitions staged; the development of playgrounds, some of which accommodated national, and international cricket in particular. All combined to release creative energies, under the immediate direction of male and female social welfare officers employed by each estate.
There was excitement at discovering dramatists, artistes and, of course, cricket talents, some of whom later became members of West Indies champion teams: Joe Solomon, Rohan Kanhai, Basil Butcher all of whom had earlier benefitted from the coaching of Robert Christiani, himself a former test cricketer, and then an Assistant Personnel Manager at Albion/Port Mourant Estate. Later Roy Fredericks (also of cricketing fame) and Raikha Bisnauth, both of Blairmont Estate, contested in national table tennis championships.
The physical energies of workers were sustained by well coordinated health services.
Canteens were upgraded with an eye to improving the nutritional standards for workers; while the art and science of food preparation was being taught in the Girls’ Clubs.
There is no question that by the 21st century the aims and objectives of the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Committee had been fully achieved.
There are therefore legitimate questions to be asked as to the justification for its perpetuation in 2013.
A perusal of the National Estimates, at least of 2012 and 2013, would reveal the exclusion of any reference to this organisation as a ‘Statutory Body’ – more than tacit recognition that the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Committee is in fact defunct, and no longer provides a relevant service.
Nevertheless its continued existence is aided and abetted by the negligence of the politicians concerned.
Arguably however, long established and new cane farmers may have a case for applying to SILWFC for relevant assistance.
Regulation 2 made under the Act (section 9.1) state as follows:
2. In these Regulations – “Committee” means the Committee appointed under section 8(2) of the Act to control and administer the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund established under the Act: “exporter” means any person engaged in the manufacture of sugar for export; “Fund” means the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund established under the Act;
“labour worker” means –
(a)    any person engaged in manual labour in or about any work incidental to the production of sugar cane and the manufacture of sugar; and
(b)    any person engaged in the production of sugar cane for sale to an exporter;
Regulation 17 (1) below sets out the disbursements which can be made from the Fund.
17. (1) The Committee may make disbursement from the Fund for the benefit and welfare of labour workers.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph the Committee may make such disbursements for any of the following purposes:
(a)    the housing of labour workers;
(b)    the improvements of social conditions (including housing and recreational facilities) of labour workers;
(c)    making loans or grants to labour workers approved by the Committee to enable such workers to erect and own houses on approved sites;
(d)    making loans to labour workers for any purposes approved by the Committee;
(e)    the establishment of crèches and the promotion of child welfare;
(f)    making grants and/or loans to associations and bodies for such purposes and on such conditions as may be approved by the Committee;
(g)    the establishment of a pure water supply; and
(h)    the improvement of sanitation.
(3) Any applicant for a loan or grant from the Fund for any of the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall make application in writing to the Committee, who may, in their discretion, grant or refuse such application.
E. B. John

 

 

---

---