Dictatorship represents a threat to trade unions

Mar 16, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – It is bitterly ironic that among those who wanted to squash the outcome of the general elections of March 2020 were elements from within the trade union movement. Having been a victim of political repression during the Burnham dictatorship, it was ironic that certain elements would adopt the position they did in relation to the 2020 elections.
During the 24 years of political dictatorship between 1968 and 1992, workers’ rights were trampled upon. And the dictatorship sought, at one time, to even assume the role of both employee and union.
In 1977, the government was supposed to sign a Minimum Wage Agreement with the Trade Union Congress (TUC). The TUC however, signed a multi-year agreement for the payment of wages which was not what it was mandated to do by its Congress.
Based on this agreement, the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) signed an agreement with its workers for the payment of increments and issued letters to this effect. However, by the time 1979 came, the country was almost bankrupt and the government could not honour the wages agreement.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was also pressuring the government to freeze wages. This was during a time of great hardships, occasioned by shortages of basic food items. The government in response to the crisis issued a circular in which it told the workers that they would not be able to pay the increase.
One of the workers, represented by NAACIE, challenged the edict in Court. His name was Teemal. He was a timekeeper employed by GuySuCo and his case became known as the Teemal vs GuySuCo case. Like Tuesday’s ruling at the CCJ, it was a landmark decision for workers’ rights in Guyana.
The Court ruled that the corporation could not arbitrarily adjust a contract of employment. It concluded that Teemal was entitled to his increments. The decision revolved around contract law.
The PNC government appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. It lost. One of the Appeal Court judges in his decision said, “It would be an alarming situation for an employee to be told by his employer that no matter what they had set out as the terms of employment, they [the employer] would reduce his salary at any time they thought and if he [the employee] did not like what was done, he could seek employment elsewhere.”
One of the lawyers representing the government had sought to suggest that the government’s decision was paramount. But the Court rejected this pointing out that it was the Constitution which was supreme. This decision represented a victory for NAACIE, the union of Teemal, but it also delegitimised the doctrine of the paramountcy of the party.
Burnham, however, was a bully, as most dictators tend to become. GuySuCo refused to pay. As such NAACIE took industrial action and one week later the Labour Amendment Bill was tabled.
That Bill sent shockwaves down the spine of the trade union movement. Under the 1980 Constitution, if the government appropriated property, they were required to pay compensation. The government, via the Labour Amendment Bill, sought to remove wages and increments from being treated as property. The intention was to deprive the sugar workers of compensation.
This decision to pass a law to override the Court decision and thus deny payments to Teemal and others, came against the background of the United States Department of State, long an ally of Burnham, issuing a damaging report on the local human rights situation. According to Thomas Spinner in his book, “A Political and Social History of Guyana 1945-1983”, the US Human Rights Report accused Burnham of using wiretaps, mail interception and physical intimidation against his political opponents.
The Labour Amendment Bill would add to his government’s dictatorial powers. It also sought to deprive workers of representation by their union when it comes to bargaining for wages. The Labour Amendment Bill sought to appoint the Trade Union Congress as the sole bargaining agent for public sector workers. It was hurriedly passed in the National Assembly.
Through this Bill, the dictatorship was placing itself above the Constitution and handing collective bargaining for wages to the PNC-controlled Trade Union Congress. This is what dictatorship does. It behaves like a bully and has no regard for the court or for the workers.
This is why it was so surprising that persons who ought to have known better, including persons active in trade unionism, should have spoken out against the attempt to steal the elections and return Guyana to those dark days of political dictatorship.
It is not fair to say that those persons were not concerned about the threat of dictatorship. But it needs to be asked: what was the factor that prevented them from condemning the attempt to return to a period of political excesses?
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---