Dear Editor,
I refer to your edition of August 27 with the captioned headline ‘Sugar grinds to halt.’ Being a former sugar worker, I am very much concerned by this detailed article to which I wish to offer my comments in the order in which it was published.
Shutdown
The sugar workers on all estates went on strike on August 26 causing a total shutdown of operations, which the corporation’s Human Resources Director described as failure by GAWU “to follow procedural protocol wherein the union was supposed to officially notify the corporation in writing of its desire to effect strike action within 72 hours.” The company official further said that the strike within the 3-day period, “as intimated” by the worker representatives to estates’ management would “result in gargantuan losses amounting to 7,000 tonnes of sugar in the vital second crop.” This, I am sure, would result in huge loss in revenue, quoted in another section of the media to be in the vicinity of G$800M. It has become a norm in the sugar industry for many years where workers proceed on strike to the detriment of the company without the union complying with the provisions of the collective labour agreement. This is a state of industrial anarchy. Workers take strike action in their own hands to press home their demands, and the President of the union, Komal Chand in the midst of these strikes would surmise that the union was taken by surprise. The union could only be taken by surprise if it lost its touch with its membership, which is seemingly dubious. This union has never lost touch with its members since too much is at stake from a political perspective.
It’s quite bewildering to see sugar workers participating in these prolonged, intensive ‘wildcat’ strikes, and expect the company’s ability to pay to improve. How could this be? Is this how the union expects its demand to be met? It’s purely ironical for the union to expect in the face of declining production and revenue, exacerbated by the EU price cut, that the company’s ability to meet its demand would be met by “total shutdowns.” If this trend continues the actual shutdown (closure) of the company would be imminent.
Injurious
The Minister of Labour has decided in accordance with the appropriate section of the labour law, to statutorily decree that the wage dispute be referred to a compulsory arbitration process, since as the Minister noted, a continuation of the dispute “was likely to be gravely injurious to the national interest.” It’s amazing that the Minister could now determine that the current strike is “injurious to the national interest.” What happens to the innumerable strikes that have plagued the sugar industry over the years? Haven’t they been “injurious to the national interest?” Why did he not appoint a commission of inquiry to enquire into the cause of all these strikes over the years, which have been severely criticized in his statement to the press, and come up with a remedy that could assure industrial peace? Wouldn’t that have prevented the many injuries that have been inflicted on the company and the nation over the years?
Mr Komal Chand, the President of the union, is a member of the central executive of the party in government, the PPP, and is also a Member of Parliament where he represents, among others, the interest of sugar on behalf of his government. Secondly, the government is the major shareholder for the sugar industry, with majority representation on the board. Why do the government and Komal Chand allow the sugar company to go through the same annual agony during wage negotiations by causing significant loss in production and revenue due to strikes? Why couldn’t they amicably settle their differences and decide on what level of increase would be given to the sugar workers, since they are the people who make the decision? Collective bargaining between the company and the union is but an annual charade.
A week ago President Jagdeo in addressing a GAWU conference clarified that the sustenance of all operating estates is not cast in stone, since if expenses continue to overrun revenue the government would have to make some firm decisions on the existence of all operating estates. The foundation, therefore, for closures has already been laid.
It would be interesting to see the outcome of the deliberations of this compulsory arbitration tribunal. It is simply a smokescreen aimed at threatening the workers to resume work, and allow the main shareholder to use the tribunal to make an award, thereby bailing GAWU out of its usual morass?
Abused
The Minister of Labour has “reminded the union that there were breaches of the Collective Labour Agreement during the course of bilateral meetings and also during conciliation workers of various estates went on strike in clear violation of the Collective Labour Agreement.” Was there a need to remind the union, when it knows for sure that these strikes blatantly violate the agreement? What is preventing the President to “read the riot act” to the union, in the same way he read it out to management at the recently held GAWU conference, or are the breaches not yet sufficient for the said act to be read to them? What more abuse of strength could there be when workers could bring the sugar industry to its knees whenever they feel like it?
The company has made it quite pellucid that it was not “insensitive to the workers economic condition of hardship but that the financial status of Guysuco did not render the demanded pay increase feasible.” This is a very straightforward statement. Was the union able to prove to the company during its several rounds of negotiations that it has the ability to pay more than 5¼ per cent? This is what collective bargaining is all about – unions objectively proving to a company that it should have a larger share of the pie, not “shutting down” the company to increase the share.
I must concede that the union has a strong case when wage increases for last year were less than the annualized rate of inflation. Such a situation erodes the purchasing power of income, rendering a deterioration in the quality of life of the workers. The union should have agitated since early this year for some form of relief from the government, similar to what was offered to the public service employees, as a buffer against the escalating cost of living.
Review of the
sugar industry
I note with keen interest the government’s decision to appoint a commission to review the performance of the sugar industry for the period 1997-2008; and of more interest is the breadth of the terms of reference. Why would the government need a commission of inquiry to tell them about the effects of strikes and the management of labour when 99% of the strikes in Guyana are from Guysuco, and when it is known that most of these strikes are caused by recklessness and callous behaviour? Why would the government need such an enquiry to tell them about the effects of climate change in the growing of sugar cane? Does the government not trust its own decision and that of its board with respect to the investment of US$200M at the Skeldon Sugar Modernization Project (SSMP) and the development of land on this estate, that it needs a consultancy to tell them? What if the consultancy tells them that they made a wrong decision by plugging G$40B in SSMP?
The government has a board that overlooks the macro-affairs of the sugar company. Is the government being misled by the board and the high-cost Booker Tate that it needs a consultancy to tell them what went wrong in the company since 1997? Why did it take this government 10 years to realize that production has been gradually declining since the great flood of 2005?
Factory commissioning
I read in another section of the media (KN 26.8.08) where the Minister of Agriculture announced that the SSMP would be commissioned on October 5, 2008, which is reminiscent of the PPP victory at the polls on October 5, 1992. What is revealing in the Minister’s statement is that “the factory is designed to operate for 25 weeks per year at full capacity.” Would the Minister care to say whether the 25 weeks would constitute one crop, and if so what work would be available to the workers during the remaining 25 weeks of the year? By which year would the estate be able to operate for 25 weeks, since the workers at Skeldon were told that for 2008 the factory would grind for 9 weeks, for 2009 12 weeks and in 2010 16 weeks?
The sugar industry is at a crossroads, and it is therefore incumbent on all stakeholders to act sensibly lest a 300-year old company is sacrificed on the altar of anarchy, mismanagement, deceit and ruthless carelessness.
Yours faithfully,
Joel Dashiyantha
Prashad
