Relations: Industrial, Human, Public, Customer

Jun 27, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

The earliest of the above must be ‘Industrial Relations’ which initially consisted, more than less, of confrontational interactions between employees (represented by Unions) and employers. Not only did the latter grow to recognise the rights of unions to bargain, to the extent of recruiting specialist Industrial Relations Officers but importantly, relevant laws were enacted to institute stages of conciliation and arbitration – leading to the settlement of disputes.
Then assertive employers around the world, who learnt to be more selective of whom they recruited, instituted the specialist Personnel Function – which, amongst other things, ensured prior agreement, first with non-unionised employees on terms of salary and other conditions of service; and interestingly, commitment to a Disciplinary Code, from which unionised employees were not necessarily exempted.
As recognition grew to greater equality between the parties, and employees were increasingly accepted, as ‘people’ being “more important than ships, shops and sugar estates” (to quote Lord Campbell then Chairman of the Booker Group worldwide). ‘Personnel’ was elevated to ‘Human’ Relations – consistent with the universal affirmation of the employee being treated as the human being he or she always was.
Oddly enough however, the Guyana experience remains a steadfast contradiction of the philosophy and practice of Human Resources Management. Apart from Private Sector Employers and their more proactive Public Sector counterparts, the Government, now the largest single employer in the country, insists on indulging in the anachronistic practice of Personnel ‘Administration’ (hardly ‘Management’) – regardless of the levels and nature of employment, except in a miniscule adventure of just two appointees in Human Resources Management, amongst some fifteen thousand public servants – more so totally indifferent to specific recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service, which it appointed in 2016.
But this is not to say that some of its component agencies are insensitive of its relationships with the ‘public’. Just note the plethora of ‘Public Relations’ Officers who claim to be authentic outlets for composed scripts, but less convincing of how truly informed they are of the historicity of the agency itself. Personally, they can hardly contest the better informed observers. One indicator of individual depth of commitment is the relatively high turnover of the signatories published.
Meanwhile, in another breadth, private sector organisations in particular speak to Customer Relations – a function too often preoccupied with a preconceived vocabulary aimed at responding to equally preconceptualised situations, compounded with the enunciation by persons not required to be of any specific analytical depth.
The fact is that the exercise is driven largely by a technologically designed process that makes little provision for the individual employee’s interpretive ability; but then it is, more often than not, a recording – a pattern of social distancing that has been accepted long before the current health pandemic.
And yet inherent in these technologically driven relationships with customers who are unseen, misplaced, unverified, (regardless of age and/or health) is the service (?) providers’ authoritarian stance – which advises the ‘dear customer’ of what little choice he or she has – unlike the old days when the latter was ‘always right’.
There is this compulsive assumption of the provider, that since the customer now has so little or no choice, the latter is entitled only to exactly the same amount and quality of ‘say’ – certainly true in the case of Guyana where exist minimal proactive consumer associations.
In the case of utility agencies, one is uncertain how assertive the Public Utilities Commission is authorised to be – for instance in terms of initiating surveys and obtaining feedback that can be effectively utilised on behalf of the customer.
More recently, the banking services have pre-empted the decision-making process about relationships, in which ‘dear valued customer’ is confidently expected not to object, most overdoing the resort to technological communication against the convenient (for them) background of the current health pandemic, overlooking how their own customers (and families) could be otherwise discomfited.
It is in this regard that one takes the opportunity to bring to attention the more sensitive reaction, banks in Canada for instance have brought to current challenges in customer relations. Hopefully, the following would be instructive – on the subject of a Code of Conduct for the Delivery of Banking Services to Seniors – it applies to banks operating under the Canadian Bank Act, and who are also member banks of the Canadian Bankers Association. For the purposes of the Code, Senior refers to persons 60 years and over.
Banks are required to incorporate the Code into their regulatory compliance management framework. In this regard, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is responsible for monitoring the banks’ compliance with the Code.
Very briefly, the commitments involved include the following:
 a member of the management be trained to promote the interests of Seniors
 Identification of circumstances where Seniors may require additional assistance with their banking activities
 Banks to implement measures to facilitate effective communication with Seniors
 Banks to provide employees and representatives with appropriate resources to help them assist seniors
 Banks to endeavour to mitigate potential financial harm to seniors
 Banks to publicly disclose the steps they have taken to support the Principles of the Code
Here is hoping that this commitment will catch not only the eye but the conscience of the local banking community, and more so the determination of the Bank of Guyana to dedicate some form of enforcement.
In the meantime, we desperately need a Seniors Consumers Association.

A disabled senior bank account

---

---