In any decent and civilized society, rights and the rule of law are paramount in the determination of any activity, be it social, economic or political. All Guyanese, including Presi-dent Jagdeo, must adhere. President Jagdeo’s references to RUSAL leaving other countries because of economic viability should be no excuse for trampling on the country’s laws and workers’ rights by the Bauxite Company Guyana Inc of which the Government of Guyana is a part-owner (‘Union urged against jeopardising bauxite investment -Jagdeo’ SN, February 13).
To say to the workers of this nation and the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union, that in the interest of a company’s economic well-being they must accept the transgressions of their rights and Guyana’s laws is preposterous.
There should be no support, tacit or explicit, by anyone, to violate Guyana’s laws and the rights of Guyanese because of the need for a job or a company’s economic viability. RUSAL is a multinational conglomerate subject to international business principles which include adherence to ethical business practices and respect for the host country’s laws. So, even if a government is inclined to violate its laws and trample on the rights of some citizens it offers no excuse to a foreign company.
Now that President Jagdeo has spoken out on the dispute it should be remembered that he was the first person the union and company approached with a proposal for wage increase. Both the union and company wrote him, twice, seeking the reinstatement of the tax-free overtime as a means of giving the workers an increase in take-home pay. This was the first agreed position by the union and company and was jettisoned by the President. It should be said that this benefit was fought for and achieved by bauxite workers in 1988 and was taken away under the PPP administration. The President needs to tell this nation why when collaborative efforts were made by the company and union to give bauxite workers more take-home pay he stood on the sidelines.
When one reads of the billions in government revenue surplus, reinstating the workers’ tax free overtime pay would not hurt the Treasury. In fact with more net income, workers would have been able to invest in personal commodities for their economic advancement which would also stand to benefit the society through taxation, be it in VAT, savings, etc. Both government and worker would have benefited, but the government is not interested in sharing the wealth with all the workers.
The union has written the Minister of Labour, Chief Labour Officer, Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board and the Ethnic Relations Commission seeking their involvement. These named bodies are legally constituted and are expected to carry out their responsibility consistent with their respective mandates.
It is unreasonable for anyone to expect workers to accept excuses or inaction from institutions and persons tasked with the responsibility to enforce the laws, protect their rights, and resolve this three-month old dispute.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
