Dear Editor,
As obviously expected, I contest the contention of my fellow human resources management practitioner Nowrang Persaud (SN. April 02, 2013) which tends towards promoting the notion of development and sustainability of the quantum and quality of skills in our society through ‘migrant skills’. It is a surprising argumentation; that the deficits in local skills (and work ethics) are to be blamed on those who have not been trained by others with the authority to rehabilitate the significant fault lines perceivable in our national education, training and development structures.
The recognition that “…we continue to lose our graduates and other trained citizens” must surely be addressed as one of the debilitating consequences of the disorganisation attending the relevant systems – uninformed as they are by any creative vision for the development of this euphemistically ‘globalised’ economy – except perhaps in terms of illegal business transaction.
Why should Guyanese, and particularly our successful and even other private entrepreneurs, take comfort in ‘cross-border human resource mobility’, which from the evidence available undermines the former’s competitiveness through, amongst others, the flagrant utilisation of cheap labour (not skills); as well as the non-compliance of our labour laws; but also contributes to the (published) increasing incidence of violence and other forms of reported unsociable activities – in a fast growing community that nevertheless justifies the descriptor ‘Hinterland’. Incidentally, there is little evidence of migrants having brought relevant skills to the Public Service, for example, where there is also ample need and opportunity. There are those (in some African countries) who would describe the process as a version of re-colonisation.
As a management practitioner my substantial experience has been that colleague managers embraced the well established principle that they were responsible to the organisation for developing their subordinates, moreso in relation to a carefully designed succession plan.
It is at least a curious formulation therefore which substantively misconstrues that “…places must be reserved for locals who are not demonstrating any hunger for self development” How could such an interpretation be justified? On the other hand my own extrapolation may be awry; but do I get a sense of resignation to, if not abdication of, our collective responsibility as employers, educators and managers for developing our indigenous human resources?
Surely the real burden of this discourse is about effective strategic planning and co-ordinated implementation.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
