The Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) says that after careful deliberations and analysis it is not in support of government selling off its 20% shares in what it described as the “still lucrative, profit-making Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T).”
FITUG is also calling on the government to review its decision to sell the “people’s GT&T shares.”
FITUG comprising the Guyana Labour Union (GLU), the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE), the Clerical and Commercial Workers Union (CCWU) and the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) said in a press release on Monday that it finds that “those shares which should have been much more than (the) 20% stake they now are, had it not been for the then PNC government negotiators, nevertheless represent a viable… asset belonging to the people of Guyana, including the nearly 35,000 workers FITUG represents.”
FITUG declared that it is adamant those people’s shares “should not be disposed of at this time, even in the name of liberalizing the local telecommunications sector.”
The largest worker-representative grouping contended that marketplace economics determine that competition can be advantageous even as monopolies are ended. In any event, FITUG said, figures just released – it did not cite the source – show that last year government collected $1.5 billion in taxes from the company and $265 million in dividends.
It added that it understands that for the first half of 2009 the Treasury had collected $615 million in dividends from its 20% shareholding.
The government shares, the release noted, which are held on behalf of the people yielded no less than $200 million per year, with over $800 million earned in 2004 alone, and reportedly GT&T’s book value is now worth over $5 billion, while its market value undoubtedly exceeds this number.
FITUG asserted further that whatever government’s reasons, projections and plans, the “people’s shares should be retained.”
The four-union grouping concluded that competition and alternative government interventions can also lead to the promised ‘cheaper costs’, as well as the advent of all the information communication technologies possible along with the employment opportunities they will bring.
