Similarities in GPSU’s challenges in 1999 and 2016

Jul 25, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor;
My experience commencing from 1997 and subsequent events in 1999 and continuing during the Jagdeo’s tenure and most recent developments since the taking of the reign of power by the APNU/AFC Government all in relation to the GPSU have compelled me to make this contribution since it’s over two decades and there would be many persons who are not familiar with the series of events that occurred.
In 1997, the GPSU encountered the greatest betrayal from the PPP/Civic Government. In effect Dr. Jagan recognized that his perception of Yarde’s leadership of the GPSU was erroneous which he acknowledged was not consistent and that what was being done was not anti-government but was a genuine campaign to address the inadequacies of public servants’ working conditions and their welfare.
Thus in January 1997, he, Dr. Jagan set up a bi-partite commission headed by Mr. Shaik Baksh and Mr. Patrick Yarde with a mandate to put up recommendations to address these multifaceted concerns.
It should be noted that prior to this development, the Government had entered into two major agreements (1993, 1994) with the GPSU, both of which were not fully honoured. The bi-partite committee unanimously agreed to a number of recommendations which died with the death of Dr. Jagan and were never honoured.
In 1998, notwithstanding the GPSU’s submission of a multi-year proposal for 1998,1999 and 2000, the Government got about arbitrarily implementing increases in salaries for 1998 which provoked a response from the GPSU resulting in a very successful mobilization of its members to initiate Industrial action resulting in the Government backing down and inviting the union to discussions which ended in an agreement for salary increases effective July lst,1998 and a commitment to respect the existing legally binding Agreement for the Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes to address the two outstanding years of the Union’s three year proposal.
Again the Government frustrated discussions on these proposals and the then Finance Minister, Bharrat Jagdeo proceeded to enter into an agreement with the IMF on behalf of the Government of Guyana, a feature of which the salaries of public servants would be restrained to a three percent salary increase annually for a period of ten years. This action and the Government’s determination to hold to this deceitful position was the root cause for the 1999 fifty-seven days strike by GPSU which ended in an agreement for the matter to be settled by arbitration. Both parties agreed, (the Government of Guyana and the GPSU) that the decision of the arbitration panel would be final and binding.
The leader of the Government’s delegation was Mr. Winston Jordan. His mandate then was to defend the PPP Government’s decision by justifying that what they offered was reasonable. Anyone having an acquaintance with his performance would recognise how vigorously he pursued that task.
He failed dismally to persuade the Arbitration Panel that there was merit in his submission. This rejection and the recognition of the merit of the Union’s case convinced the Arbitrators to make an award of 31.06 percent increases in salaries and allowances for 1999 and 26.66 percent for 2000.
It must be noted that Mr. Jordan was eventually relieved of employment by the Government of Guyana and during the ensuing period of unemployment without ill-will, the GPSU embraced him. In effect he was an advisor to the President of the GPSU and sat as a part of the GPSU’s Team in meetings with visiting delegations including the IMF. It is obvious he had knowledge of concerns that prevailed at the leadership level of the needs of the membership and the consequential effects for their welfare and that of their families.
It therefore would be of interest to determine what takes place in the current negotiations since, there is a perception in the GPSU that what currently prevails is identical to what they experienced in the 1999 arbitration which clearly displays the inconsistency and inadequacy of the economic circumstances that public servants have to endure.
The closed minded determination of the Ministry of Finance’s representative in pursuance of the Minister’s mandate regardless of the consequences for the workers, coupled with the unpredictable basis being advanced to justify his position should be made known.
This conduct is being pursued in the face of glaring evidence of falsifications and inaccuracies. Compounding this situation is the Minister’s recent public statement of the negotiations which is in conflict with the request of the government’s negotiating team to the union that the negotiating parties should endeavour to issue joint press releases on the progress of the negotiations.
I am aware of the effort of the President of the GPSU to be professional and principled in dealing with the current Government of Guyana. I am also aware of his persistent approach and his desire for this Government to be successful. It is no secret that he has clearly and definitively expressed this view in public statements.
My question is “‘how long would he be prepared to subject himself to such unprofessional and unprincipled conduct?” Further, “how long would the members of the Union subject themselves to his discretion in dealing with these matters that are germane and integral to their benefits and the welfare of themselves and families?”
Former GPSU Executive

---

---