Put your house in order before criticizing your neighbour’s home

May 05, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Trade unionism is not a political vocation. As far back as 1952, the International Labour Organization (ILO) recognized the convergence of objectives between trade unions and political parties.
Trade unions often find themselves having to move beyond industrial negotiations to agitate for economic benefits, including reduced taxation, retention of subsidies and demands for a living wage. This often puts them against governments and leads to the appearance of unions having a political agenda.
In pre-independent Guyana, the struggle for improved living and working conditions became intertwined in the large political struggle to end foreign exploitation. Conversely, many trade unions often use industrial disputes for political ends.
This is true in Guyana and elsewhere. As such, the ILO recognized the need to provide guidance on what should be the relationship between trade unionism and politics.
It issued a Resolution in 1952 concerning the independence of the trade union movement. The ILO stressed that trade unions have a role to play in cooperating with other elements in promoting social and economic development and the advancement of the community as a whole. The ILO, however, was wary of the dangers of such cooperation eroding the independence of the union.
The ILO, in its 1952 Resolution, stressed the essential need for the trade union movement to preserve its independence, irrespective of the political changes in its country. The litmus test unions’ independence in such relations is their ability to carry out their work without compromising their functions.
The ILO predicted that occasions would arise where relations will have to be established with political parties or where unions would have to “undertake political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives.” It urged, however, that such actions should not compromise the unions’ functions irrespective of political changes in the country.”
Politics and trade unionism have been entwined. In some instances trade unions have been enlisted to undertake political action on behalf of political parties. GAWU has always had an association with the PPP and the Guyana Labour Union was associated, until a few years ago, with the PNC. A right to work movement was established in the 1980s and eventually evolved into a political party called the Democratic Labour Movement.
Some unions continue to be used as political footballs by political parties. Some unions are extremely dormant at this time. But just wait and see when a new government comes, in how quickly they will suddenly become militant.
Given this strong historic association between trade unions and political parties, it is not surprising that some union leaders would gravitate to leadership positions within political parties.
But it is one thing for individual trade union leaders to be politically affiliated and another thing for the umbrella body of the trade union movement to be partisan.
The Guyana Trade Union Congress (TUC) is the umbrella body of trade unions in Guyana. It is supposed to represent all its constituent unions. As the principal body representing trade unions in the country.
It is therefore unacceptable for high officials of the TUC to be running for political office, much less to be endorsing a political party and openly canvassing for that party on the campaign trail. In any other part of the world, those who did this would have been asked to resign.
If ever there was a place where a code of conduct was needed, it is in the trade union movement. Any such code should insist on the independence of the umbrella body for trade unions.
A new dispensation is needed in the relationship between trade unions and political parties. It would be desirable for trade union leaders to not assume positions within political parties, period.
Many years ago, a trade union leader took collateral-free personal loan from an employer to buy a car. The car was imported and registered in the name of the trade union leader.
When this fact was made public, it caused a stir. There were reports that some workers actually signed forms revoking their membership because of what they perceived as an improper relationship between a union official and the company with which he would have had to negotiate on the workers’ behalf.
It is impossible to divorce politics and trade unionism. But there are principles which ought to guide the relationship between political parties and unions and between union leaders and employers.
The ILO has offered guidance in this area. Before the trade union movement calls on other organizations to have codes of conduct, it should seek to regulate its own affairs and that of its affiliate unions, under its own code of conduct.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---