GTUC calls for inquiry into 1999 shooting

Mar 04, 2014 News

---

 – slams Opposition’s lack of empathy regarding its rejection of subvention

A call for an inquiry into the shooting of persons at the John Fernandes Wharf in 1999 was yesterday made by General Secretary of the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC), Lincoln Lewis.
Lewis, who was at the time speaking at a press conference venued at the GTUC’s Woolford Avenue, Georgetown, headquarters, vocalised his belief that it was this very incident that resulted in the Guyana Agricultural Workers Union and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) abandoning the GTUC. This has been a major issue plaguing the union fraternity over the years, Lewis hinted. “That is the issue,” he categorically stated even as he highlighted how the rights of the GTUC has in fact been further trampled on by a decision, collectively made by the National Assembly last week.
The decision is one where the GTUC’s operated Critchlow Labour College (CLC) will be granted a subvention that it has been denied for a number of years, on the condition that it incorporates members from the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG). GTUC has rejected the proposal.

FITUG and the GTUC have been at loggerheads for a number of years, which is amplified annually on the May 1 divisive commemoration of Labour Day.  “The issue here is about our right to determine who  will be on the Board…the unions in FITUG are not under the TUC, so why are you telling me that the people who walked out from here, and are out there, they must have a right in determining our programme?” questioned Lewis.
Moreover, he insisted that the National Assembly should in fact be seeking to first address the shooting incident that occurred more than a decade ago. The National Assembly, according to him, “cannot sit among themselves and decide that if CLC is going to benefit from monies from the State it has to be where they impose a certain amount of persons on the board.”
Lewis noted that while there can be a clause that insist that the GTUC properly manage any subvention it is granted, the National Assembly can certainly never provide evidence to question its accountability in the past.  “…Over the years they have not been able to prove that it is not properly managed; they have been making spurious statements around the place because all the time whenever we collect the grant it has always been kept in a fund and the Auditor General Office came every quarter and audited that fund…”
According to Lewis, although the union would like to see the subvention restored it is certainly not prepared to compromise its stance. “We were closed at one time, we had tall bushes and grass in this compound, the eastern wing of this building was in somewhat disrepair; we have been on our backs at that time. Today we are no longer on our backs, we are walking now and if we did not compromise and giveaway our rights at that juncture now that we are walking again why should we ever think of doing so,” articulated a passionate Lewis.
He however insisted yesterday that “the issue here is not about the money, the issue before us is the transgressing of our rights as an organisation; that is the issue – transgressing of rights, violating of rules and time-honoured principles.”
According to Lewis the GTUC has on occasions, in the past, shared its concerns with the parliamentary Opposition which had promised to pursue the matter.
He noted that although the GTUC is grateful for the Alliance for Change (AFC) Trevor Williams’ move to take the subvention motion to Parliament, it is rather troubling to see other Members of the Opposition seeking to betray the trust of the union body.
In amplifying his disappointment in individuals within the parliamentary Opposition, GTUC President, Leslie Gonsalves, yesterday sought to highlight that although initially the union outfit was led to belief that the Opposition was out-manouvered in its representation tactics, reports carried in a section of the media has shed new light on the state of affairs.
According to Gonsalves, “after reading the responses of Mr (Khemraj) Ramjattan and Dr (Rupert) Roopnarine of the AFC and (A Partnership for National Unity) APNU in Stabroek News, GTUC is convinced that the vote taken in Parliament has more ominous undertones that should resonate with all Guyanese.”
Both Roopnarine and Ramjattan in the Stabroek News expressed disappointment in the GTUC’s unwillingness to compromise and accept the terms on which the subvention will be granted.
According to Gonsalves it is clear that what the National Assembly has done is come together using the GTUC and CLC as the example of their collective policy position.  In fact, he speculated that the message being sent is that all Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) that are recipients of taxpayers’ money will now be subjected to Government’s indirect ownership and control determined by the choice of number of Government representatives on their boards.
“The unacceptable conditionality set for the CLC convention goes beyond the money as it is the intention of Government aided by the collective Opposition to undermine civic independence and resistance and make all party to the dictates of the politicians or perhaps the PPP,” noted Gonsalves.
Moreover, he insisted that the GTUC is “uncompromising, and in this instance proudly so! We are un-relenting when it comes to violating our rights to determine the composition of the CLC Board.”
The CLC, he stressed, “does not belong to the politicians and they cannot sit among themselves and decide who must comprise the Board.”
Contrary to Dr Roopnarine’s claim, Gonsalves added that the CLC statute makes specific reference to the Guyana Trades Congress having representatives, and made no reference to the trade union community or to FITUG, whom he represents, for membership.
Decisions for the College are taken at the College Board and the GTUC decision-making fora, Gonsalves outlined, adding that either the College nor the GTUC has ever taken a decision to change its management structure and there is no need for such.
Furthermore, he amplified that the GTUC has noted the silence from APNU’s Shadow Minister of Labour Basil Williams. “We urge his sentiments on this matter recognizing that he might be more informed on matters of labour, the GTUC and company laws than his colleague whose opinion was voiced on behalf of APNU.”
Gonsalves recalled that earlier in the debate, the Shadow Minister had called for the matter to be referred to a Select Committee and the representatives given the opportunity to contribute since this would have been the correct thing to do. As such, he noted that the body is presently concerned about what could have led to the diversion and strange position subsequently taken by Parliament.
For this reason, he noted that the GTUC would also like to hear from Shadow Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge, who has been deemed “best poised in the Opposition having come out of Government, regional and international parliamentary and decision making systems, to ascertain whether the National Assembly of Guyana was engaged in best practice by voting on an issue that seeks to undermine the structure of a legitimate private entity over which it has no control.”
In fact, Gonsalves noted that the GTUC sees the actions of the National Assembly as reverting to nationalization as a means of dominance and control of social space, which he dubbed “a closer step towards social, economic and political control.”
Gonsalves noted yesterday too that the GTUC is cognizant of its resistance and its impact on political and executive lawlessness even in its current state of being, adding that “we remind all that the determination for the composition of the CLC board is the call of the GTUC. This is the GTUC’s right and it is uncompromising on this matter because rights are non-negotiable.”
In fact it is the view of the GTUC President that “having attempted to violate these, the outspoken members of Parliament should apologise for their attempted transgression, review its implications for the wider society and freedoms, and focus all energies on adequate representation in the country’s highest decision making forum where quality should not be just a passing word but an act of purpose.”

---

---