GuySuCo seeks to defend what cannot be defended

May 26, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) has taken note of a  letter appearing in the May 21, 2017 issue of Kaieteur News and on May 22  Stabroek News captioned “GAWU must show what “added value” it brings to the partnership with GuySuCo” was authored by the Corporation’s Senior Communication Officer, Ms Audreyanna Thomas.
Our Union cannot fail to express our concern over the unusually strong language which was used by the GuySuCo Officer but we see the missive as another desperate attempt to cast aspersions on our Union for its principled stance in defending sugar workers, their families and the people and communities linked to those estates that will be adversely affected by the government’s recent disclosure on the future of the sugar industry.
The GuySuCo letter begins by calling attention to the large participation by Guyanese from all walks of life in a march on May 16, 2017 opposing plans by the Corporation and the Government to close Rose Hall Estate at year-end. While our Union is being branded as having ”lost its way”, we rightfully contend that wouldn’t any right-thinking Union seek to protect the well-being of its members and their families when they are being pushed onto the breadline? It seems, from our point of view, that the large turnout in the march and the solidarity it received have bruised the egos of some ‘important’ people and the Corporation’s letter is by all means an attempt at a futile ‘defense’.
The sugar corporation then goes on to scapegoat GAWU and the sugar workers for the Corporation’s current sad state-of-affairs but we hasten to ask how it is that production this year is expected to reach only 198,000 tonnes despite some $32B being invested by the state into the industry since 2015? The workers and the Union are not involved in the day-to-day decision making which is said now-a-days to be concentrated at the very top. Certainly, the workers and GAWU cannot and should not be blamed for the obvious shortcomings which have been glaringly aggravated in recent times.
GuySuCo in seeking to defend its indefensible positions has drawn attention to the number of strikes between 2001 and 2016. Our Union reiterates that the bulk of the strikes are related to price disputes which are legitimized in the Recognition and the Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes Agreement and concerns additional payment to undertake tasks in weedy and grassy fields. Such disputes will arise naturally and calls attention to the Corporation’s inability to cultivate sufficient quantities of canes.
This is aptly borne out in the tonnes of cane per hectare (TcH) statistics. GuySuCo, earlier this year, advised the Parliamentary Economic Services Committee that last year its TcH was around 56, this is far from an acceptable TcH of between 75 and 85. In the absence of canes, there will be a proliferation of vines and weeds in the cane fields and thus make workers tasks even more difficult and time consuming and thus resulting in demands for extra payments.
Interestingly, the corporation’s missive states that “GuySuCo did not arrive at this deteriorated state overnight, this is the result of years of decline in several aspects of the business to which GAWU has and still is directly contributing.” In using the corporation’s strike figures for the period 2001-2016, the Union wishes to state that the second lowest number of man-days lost through strikes in the said period was recorded in 2013 (38,121), but the second lowest production since 1990 (186,000) was recorded by the Company in 2013. So in what way did GAWU directly contributed to such meager production?
Our Union requests for the public edification a breakdown of the number of strikes by number and percentage to show the strikes and man-days that were lost under the category “condition of work” for the period 2001-2016. This will illustrate the magnitude of strikes associated with the sub-optimal condition of the cane fields.
From the Corporation’s strike data, we find it interesting too that in 2016 while production was the lowest since 1990, the number of man days lost as a result of strikes was 66 per cent lower than the peak in 2009. We ask: doesn’t the Corporation find it perplexing that in 2016 it had the third least number of strike days in sixteen (16) years yet production sunk to a lowest in twenty-six (26) years? The strike argument seems less and less convincing. Indeed it confirms the adage that the devil is in the details.
We agree that sugar production and more so maximum production and revenue must always be the Corporation’s intention. But, at the same time, the Corporation cannot fail to recognize the role of its workforce in achieving such feats. The haughty and arrogant approach by the Corporation hierarchy, therefore, cannot be helpful in this regard.
GuySuCo also refers to the turnout of planters and cane cutters in 2016. But this is telling only half of the story. What the Corporation conveniently fails to mention is that mechanization in both cane harvesting and cane planting are assisting in improving productivity and reducing costs. For example, cane cutters who cut canes which are mechanically loaded tend to cut twice as much as compared to when they are required to cut and load their canes. Of course such a situation is also premised on a ready supply of canes. Many times this, however, is often not the case. In such situations, workers must be engaged, sometimes, in drawn out negotiations to secure additional payments to harvest canes  in fields infested by grass, weeds and vines which only serve to frustrate workers, and deter their productivity.
The workers’ turnout also cannot be disconnected to the denial of pay rises in 2015 and 2016; the denial of Annual Production Incentive in 2016 as well as the arbitrary change, in several instances, to long standing work practices. We ask again doesn’t the Corporation find it strange that the turnout is what it is when employment opportunities diminish by the day. Again, we urge the Corporation to consult the textbooks on labor supply theory which advises what to expect when wage rates are stifled.
Seepaul Narine
GAWU

---

---