Politicized Labour and Industrial Relations in the Public Sector

Sep 23, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,

Major labour industrial relations issues are considered to be politically sensitive once they affect any state sector/funded agency, and especially if unions, linked to political parties are involved. Inevitably, any labour issue would have a political dimension because of the very nature of the relationship. Experience has shown that where governments interpreted, perceived or deemed an issue as having political motives, or if it is seen as a challenge to governments, or if it would affect the national interest as defined by governments, then one can expect responses from the state and its machinery. In such a situation, traditional and established industrial relations principles and practices may be under severe strain.
Often controversial issues are seen as contests between the political parties. From the government’s point of view, they are perceived as attempts to destabilize the economy, to ferment unrest and civil disobedience, or to dislodge the government. From the opposition, non-government perspective, they are seen as attempts to muzzle, undermine, or keep the trade unions in line. The government is the crucial actor; it is the only actor in the dual role as both government and public sector employer who can change the rules of the system by Legislation or other means.

Trade unions are sometimes compelled by prevailing circumstances to take a passively defensive position. They may accept the priorities and rules determined by government, and then impose the required restraint on their members. Pay in the public sector is subject to restraint since government has an overriding responsibility for the state of the economy; and unions’ collective bargaining activities have implications for the economy.

INDUSTRIAL AND POLITICAL ORIENTATION

The division between the industrial and political orientation is one of the sources of difficulty for the unions in periods of crises and active state intervention. There are concerns about unions acting with political motives when they threaten or use industrial power for political ends, or in support of a political party’s position. But it has been just as political to support the political action of a government or to accept wage restraints in favour of a presumed national interest.

Trade unions face a dilemma: how far could they go in responding to the challenges and opportunities of a political role without sacrificing their independence and their permanent mission of promoting and protecting their members’ immediate economic interests for improved remuneration and employment conditions? The dilemma is more pronounced given the central role of the government in regulating remuneration in the public sector.

The challenge of freedom of association and development

The argument that trade unions’ full freedom of association is an obstacle to development can be reversed It can be argued that the lack of development is hampering the exercise of freedom of association. This freedom comes up against numerous barriers. The realities of the economic situation are often invoked to place severe limitations on the trade unions’ wage negotiating function, and to challenge them to consider adopting policies that would aid the country’s economy. The real challenge is for the social partners – government, trade unions, and employers in the private sector – to play a more constructive role in labour relations with expectations that there will be higher labour productivity, fewer industrial disputes and strikes, more labour peace, and a climate of labour relations that will be conducive to development through social partnership arrangements at the enterprise and national levels..

Sincerely,

SAMUEL J. GOOLSARRAN

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News