Unions, UG administration in stalemate over salary increases

Nov 02, 2017 News

---

Even with support from a sister union, the unions representing the workers of the University of Guyana [UG] have been unable to make any headway in getting the administration of the tertiary institution to sign off on wage and salary increases for 2017.
In a joint statement, the University of Guyana Workers Union [UGWU] and the University of Guyana Senior Staff Association [UGSSA] said, “We are deeply disappointed that the University’s administration has persisted in stubborn and unhelpful postures that have prevented the signing of the agreement of the percentage increase to the wages and salaries of the University’s staff for 2017.”
This is in spite of the fact that the Guyana Trades Union Congress [GTUC] has become involved in the process of attempting to resolve the deadlock. According to the UG staff unions, “even here the administration has proven to be the stumbling block. While we were ready to meet on Thursday (October 19), the administration declared itself unavailable on both Thursday and Friday [the day after].”
“We are still waiting for the administration’s response to the documents prepared by the GTUC which were offered to both parties at a meeting held at the GTUC’s boardroom on Wednesday October 25,” the unions have disclosed.
It was reported that Vice Chancellor, Professor Ivelaw Griffith attended this meeting along with four senior members of the University’s administration. It was, however noted that Professor Griffith, himself declared that he was unable to make a decision without consulting other members of his “cabinet” who were not present. “Today [yesterday] marks the beginning of a new month. The workers of the University of Guyana have been waiting since February 2017 for the settlement of this issue,” the unions complained in a statement issued yesterday.
Reflecting on the daunting state of events that have led to the prevailing deadlock, the unions revealed that in July 2016, the Vice Chancellor requested and was granted special powers [with immediate effect] by the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the University to deal with lecturers who fail to submit grades on time. These powers, which have been outlined by the unions, include the ability to disqualify lecturers from annual increment.
With such power at his disposal, the unions are concerned that “The Vice Chancellor has made the non-submission of grades by lecturers the sole performance issue to be included in the memorandum of agreement regarding wages and salaries 2017 at the University. We find it odd that he wishes to now include us in a punitive measure against staff, when he was granted the powers he requested.” Moreover, in 2016, the unions, headed by Dr. Jewel Thomas [UGSSA] and Mr. Bruce Haynes [UGWU], objected to sweeping powers being given to one person while steps were not being taken to address wider problems with the system of assessment in the University.
“This is still our position today. We are clear that while we support the efficient operation of the entire assessment process, we cannot sign any agreement which appears to make us responsible for that process,” the unions have highlighted. As such, they have outlined clearly that since unions are not the administration; we can only support what the administration does with regard to the process.”
But the unions have observed that the wording of the clause in the memorandum appeared to transfer the administration’s responsibility to the Unions.
“We asked for advice from recognised labour advocates and were told that the particular clause as worded could not be included in the memorandum. We have always supported calls for efficient performance by staff, but have also maintained that the administration needs to also fulfill its side of the deal. There are many parts of the grade preparation and submission process that are controlled by the administration. While we will support appropriate measures to improve this process, the administration has ultimate responsibility for it, including any sanctions that must be implemented. We have also said that there must be a holistic approach to improving the process, and we therefore requested in January 2017 (and the administration agreed) that the discussion around performance form part of a second, separate negotiation process,” the unions emphasised in the statement.
But the unions have noted that the administration has also refused to divulge the cost of its final offer of eight percent to UB (Support) staff and six percent to UA (Academic) staff. “We believe that this is because the administration wishes to pay itself the same six percent increase that it is paying to the UA staff. Their pay-out would be included in the $182M that the administration declared would be the sum to pay the staff. It is for this reason that we have been asking since September 2017 for a detailed breakdown of the sum,” the unions have noted.
The unions have said since the beginning of negotiations [its first proposal was sent to the Vice Chancellor on April 13, 2017] with the administration that the senior members of the administration could not be included in the negotiations. The seven officers, it has named are the Vice Chancellor, the Deputy Vice Chancellors, the Registrar, the Bursar and the Director of the Berbice Campus. “Their salaries are above the maximum of the regular pay scales. We do not even know how much these persons earn,” the unions have noted, adding that the University Council finalised the employment packages for these individuals and it is the responsible body for discussing their performances this year and deciding on any awards.
The unions have however taken keen note of the fact that the administration has been insistent that it will be paid as part of this process and it seems that it is willing to do anything to ensure that they are paid.
“The administration has repeatedly removed from the agreement any clause that made it absolutely clear that members of the senior administration cannot be paid any part of the increase. The Vice Chancellor has also refused to even discuss the possibility of including the breakdowns we requested. He has said, after publicly touting his belief in “transparency”, that he will not be giving any more information about the details of the offer,” the unions said.
As such it is the believed of the unions that “we maintain that the Vice Chancellor is attempting to use staff performance as a distraction to cover up what appears to be the sheer greed of demanding the same percentage salary increase as persons earning far less than those senior members of administration.”

 

---

---