Seizing the moral high ground at UG

Feb 27, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In any battle the safest ground is always the highest ground. In any struggle the safest ground is the moral high ground.
This is advice that the unions involved in the present dispute with the University of Guyana should heed. These unions need to seize the moral high ground. They need to establish the justness of their cause through the reasonableness of their demands. But they must also ensure that the methods they pursue are lawful and do not impede on the rights of others, including the rights of their colleagues who may wish to work.
The unions have called a strike. The strike weapon has long been regarded as a legitimate means through which trade unions press their demands on employers. No trade union can afford to abandon the right to strike.
This strike weapon or the right to lawfully withdraw labour after giving due notice is the only security that unions have that collective bargaining agreements are going to be respected. Without the possibility of withdrawing one’s labour, workers can never be sure that their employers will negotiate with the workers’ union or respect agreements.
The right to strike, however, is neither guaranteed nor protected under Guyana’s Constitution. What is protected is the right to freedom of association.  Article 40 of the Constitution of Guyana guarantees freedom of association. The right to belong to a trade union is long associated with this fundamental freedom. Indeed, without the right to association, trade unions would be at the mercy of both employers and public authorities, and could be arbitrarily outlawed and de-recognized.
The right to freedom of association is therefore protective of the right to belong to and to form trade unions. Article 147 of the Constitution of Guyana reaffirms this right to association, including the right to form and belong to trade unions. But it equally asserts that laws and restrictions can be made in the interest of public safety defence, morality, order and health.
Restrictions can also be placed on public officers. These restrictions would not amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. The strike weapon is not protected under this provision.
The strike weapon is however deemed a right under international conventions, of which Guyana is a signatory. The right to strike only exists where it is in compliance with the law. Governments are obligated to ensure that this right is not violated. Such protections do not encompass illegal actions as part of a strike.
In pursuing strike action, unions at the University of Guyana should first take the moral high ground by ensuring that their industrial action does not violate the rights of others. Entrances and exits to the University should not be blocked. This is unlawful and is not protected under the right to freedom of assembly or association. When supporters of a union have to resort to physically preventing others from working, this is unlawful action and not a protected right.
During the long public service strike of 1999, supporters of the Guyana Public Service Union blocked entrances to government offices and physically prevented workers from entering. This was not taking the moral high ground. This was seizing the law ground.
The Guyana Public Service Union became a victim of its methods, and today has neither bark nor bite. Today, it is forced to watch on helplessly year after year while the government imposes salary increases on public servants. The methods of the union backfired on it and its strike ended ignominiously.
The unions of the University of Guyana should avoid a similar fate. They should seek the moral high ground, and attempt to persuade those lecturers and workers who are still on the job to join them. They have to understand the realities of life in Guyana. Some people have bills to pay and families to maintain. They cannot afford to strike unless strike relief compensates them for the loss of income while off the job. The unions have to respect those workers who cannot afford to stay off the job.
The unions should condemn and ostracize those who are pursuing unlawful methods in blocking persons from entering the university’s compound. Those who are doing this are not winning adherents and supporters. They are behaving like bullies. Bullies stand on low moral ground.
The unions also have to seize the moral high ground by being reasonable in their demands. If their demands are not reasonable, their cause cannot be just.   The unions cannot be calling for a sixty per cent increase. This is clearly beyond the reach of the University administration, indeed any administration. There is no reasonableness in this demand by the unions.
The fact that university lecturers in other countries of the Caribbean earn more cannot be the basis for justifying the demands by the unions.  The per capita income of Guyana is way below its Caribbean counterparts. Therefore we cannot expect to be paid on par with those lecturers unless Guyana is going to charge students fees commensurate with what is charged by those foreign universities.
The unions need to step back and take the moral high ground. Make demands that are reasonable. Condemn the unlawful blockading of campus.
Finally, do not expect to be paid for time off the job. Once you go on strike, you have to face the consequences, the most important of which is that you will not be paid for the time off the job. That too is a moral position.

---

---