Sugar union asks; where is the good life promised to Guyanese?

Jul 21, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) refers to Mr Abel Seetaram’s letter entitled “The sugar union has misrepresented workers’ rights since 1992″ which appeared in the July 19, 2017 Kaieteur News. It seems that our response to Mr Seetaram’s last letter has, seemingly, upset him to the point that he rambles on making pointless and hollow statements which are not borne out by reality. It’s unfortunate that Mr Seetaram is degenerating to gutter-style writing.
Mr Seetaram must have known that last Sunday’s (July 16, 2017) rally at Rose Hall was not organized by GAWU in any way, shape or form. Moreover, from the information we have at hand, the rally was well attended by Guyanese from all walks of life and from several villages near and far. Seetaram spoke of vehicles being present at the rally. Quite logically those who are from areas that are some distance from the rally venue would have driven. Or is it Mr Seetaram saying that only a certain ‘class’ of people should own and drive vehicles. If this is indeed so, then it speaks to the contempt and disdain held by Mr Seetaram and, no doubt, his colleagues who are perched atop the pyramid of power.
Mr Seetaram accuses us of financially supporting our “political allies”. This is a worn out and tired accusation which has failed to gain traction. We recognize this is a tune also being sung by several of Mr Seetaram’s political colleagues in an attempt to besmirch and denigrate our Union. The GAWU wishes to make it crystal clear to Mr Seetaram and his colleagues that it does not financially support any political organization and this can be verified by the year Auditor General’s Financial Statements of our Union. As a mass-based organization we are fully aware that our members are supportive of the various political parties in our country and we are respectful of their views.
Mr Seetaram asks us to list the cases we won, the NIS contribution matters we have represented, the improvements in working conditions, among other things. The response that he is seeking would fill up probably a voluminous text book, and which certainly will not be carried by any local newspaper. But to answer you in a nutshell, our work in defending, safeguarding and advancing workers’ rights and concerns has seen a sustained improvement in working conditions and benefits, and we will never flinch from this responsibility.
The sugar workers are very much aware of our Union’s role and have staunchly supported GAWU, and have resiliently stood with the Union even before its formal recognition with GuySuCo. It would do Mr Seetaram well if he could solicit from GuySuCo, with whom no doubt he has easy access, information on the myriad of benefits that GAWU has won over the years for the sugar workers.
The erstwhile gentleman then accuses our Union of lying to workers. But we ask Mr Seetaram what lies is he referring to? Are we lying, on the government’s plan for the sugar industry when we say 9,000 workers would be sent onto the breadline; or that 50,000 Guyanese stand threatened by impoverishment; or several village economies face the real prospect of ruination; or the likely probability of increased crime and other anti-social behaviour in sugar communities? These are not lies but real, cold, hard facts.
Mr Seetaram it seems you have not been reading our responses carefully or you are just being plainly wicked. There were always plans to safeguard the industry recognizing the consequences of the EU price cuts. Those plans involved moving the industry away from a raw, bulk sugar producer to a vertically-integrated, diversified industry producing several products. Maybe you can have your colleagues share with you several of the studies and plans which were done in moving in this direction. It is foolhardy to say that nothing was done when the reality paints a different picture altogether.
The Blairmont packaging plant was the first such plant established by GuySuCo and was intended to be a model for other plants that would be established. While it is indeed true that the plant produced Demerara Gold sugar it also exposes Seetaram’s lack of knowledge. The name ‘Demerara’ in terms of sugar refers to “branding” and not solely a location. That brand is being used by several other sugar producing countries. In fact at this time GuySuCo is seeking to safeguard the name ‘Demerara’.
Mr Seetaram, you then go on saying that the “East Coast Demerara Estates had to be closed”. This is news for us and we wonder why this wasn’t shared in the 2015 Election Campaign. Contrary to your assertion, there was a plan to safeguard Enmore/LBI and all estates for a matter of fact. At Enmore/LBI, extensive work was done in converting fields to facilitate mechanization in an effort to reduce cost of production. In terms of enhancing revenues, the packaging plant was established since GuySuCo receives its highest price from the sale of such direct-consumption sugar. Studies also found that a co-generation plant would have been viable at the estate. There was no ‘doomsday clock’ for Enmore/LBI as the author asserted.
Mr Seetaram your contemptuous letters filled with baseless and fallacious assertions are nothing but a weak and futile defense of plans for the sugar industry which will haunt our nation for generations to come. We ask the Councillor what happened to “Sugar is too big to fail” and where is the euphoric ‘Good Life’ that were promised to all Guyanese including the sugar workers. Or is it the sugar workers are deemed to be another class of people not deserving of the niceties of life. The GAWU will continue to stand in defense of the sugar workers and their families as they face the wrath of an uncaring Administration.
Seepaul Narine
GAWU

---

---