HIGHLY UNUSUAL

Jul 22, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

There used to be a time in certain workplaces when it was a standard policy to prohibit the employment of more than one person from a family or household. For example, up to the early 1970’s it was not allowed for a husband and a wife to be employed at the same time in Banks.
And if per chance you happened to be single, worked at a bank and then married one of the employees of that bank, one of the two would have had to resign immediately. Husband and wife were not allowed in those days to be employed at the same time.
Today, with the emphasis on equal opportunity, there has been a modification of this policy worldwide. Today the general policy is that members of a family or household should not be employed in the same department. Nor should one person from a household be allowed to have any supervision or reporting responsibility at the workplace to another member of that household.
Today therefore it is not unusual to find husband and wife, mother and daughter, mother and son, father and son and even father and son- in- law being employed in the same institution. But it is not likely, unless we are dealing with a family-owned business, for members of a household to be employed in the same department.
In as much as you can have more than one member of a household employed within an institution, it is highly unusual for there to be a situation in which there are father and children as well as nephews and nieces all employed at the same time in the same company. This is bound to raise eyebrows more especially when the business is a public corporation and the father happens to be the top honcho.
It is highly unusual for there to be a situation in which father, sons and other relatives are employed at the same time in one public company. This is not your usual situation. Therefore in as much as the Head of the Guyana Revenue Authority may have been upset that a member of the National Assembly raised this issue, he must be appreciative of the unusual nature of so many members of his family being employed at the same time in the company that he heads.
We are assured, of course, that no special treatment was or is being afforded the children and relatives of the Head of the Guyana Revenue Authority. We are assured also that the individuals are qualified for the positions they hold. And this is very good to learn. But this is not the issue at hand. The issue and hand was whether those persons would have been employed by virtue of their father or uncle being the head person of the Guyana Revenue Authority. This is the issue.
We are told that this is not so since there was an independent interviewing panel and because of the fact that the Board of Directors is required to confirm all appointments made. Well, these issues need clarifying. And it would be much better if the clarification originates from a source other than an interested party. In other words, some other personnel, other than the Head of the GRA, should respond to the concerns since the GRA Head has an obvious interest in this matter.
We are told there was no favouritism in the employment of the relatives of the Head of the GRA. We are told that an independent panel handled the interviews. Well independent of whom? Was it independent of the Guyana Revenue Authority? Were the members of the interviewing panel drawn from outside of the Guyana Revenue Authority?
They ought to have been because even though the Head of the GRA may not have been involved in the interviews, his position alone could have injected an element of influence in the process. Those from within the GRA who had to do the interviews would have been conscious that they were dealing with their boss’ relatives. This alone theoretically could have induced bias into the process. It may not have, but it could have.
I do not think that years after persons would have been employed that it would be fair for them to be asked to leave because of their relationship to the Head of the Guyana Revenue Authority. But it should encourage the development of some policy to deal with similar situations in the future because it is quite unusual for so many members however qualified they may be, to be employed in the same government corporation at the same time.

Latest News

HIGHLY UNUSUAL

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Ramdheol fifty leads pilots Guyana to 6-wicket win

Berbice thrash Demerara by 82-runs after Fraser...

Guyana Rainforest Rangers to bowl encampment...

A tribute to Milton Robert Pydana aka ‘Golden...

GCB expresses condolence on the passing of former...

Covent Garden Secondary boys on course for Region...

Features/Columnists

Hope is what you rely on when you do not have a plan

Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future

Politicians in houses of worship

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

HIGHLY UNUSUAL

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]