Dear Editor,
I make reference to a letter from Tony Vieira captioned ‘It is not true that there are no plans for the relief of Wales workers’ that was carried in your February 3 edition. However, I wish to point out before offering a response to his letter that I am neither associated with any political party, present or past, nor have I for one fleeting moment in all previous missives professed to be a “sugar expert”; I am far from it. I have simply endeavoured to highlight the obvious misrepresentations on wage levels by the sugar company’s recently completed commission of enquiry, and offered my perspective on the impending closure of Wales Estate. I will respond in the corresponding order that issues appeared in Vieira’s letter.
- I now admit that “other crops” was not proposed in his letter. This notwithstanding, I think Mr Vieira needs to elaborate on the “opportunity for part of the sugar cane lands through a diversification process to bring wealth to my country”. This statement is restricted to Mr Vieira accepting the position of Director of GuySuCo; as such it is a generalisation of the entire company, and not necessarily Wales. Certainly, diversification cannot be in mineral or oil mining; maybe housing or his much touted aquaculture. If it is aquaculture, wasn’t this type of farming a part of “other crops” in late 1980s when crawfish and tilapia were cultivated?
Other crops, including dairy and beef animals, were an integral part of the diversification programme, and they were all dismal failures, because of the approach by the company then, and the lack of continuing investment in it. Too many resources were ploughed into it, to the detriment of the core business – sugar. In 1991, the decision was taken to abort “other crops” and as economists called it, “stick to the knitting” – sugar. Whilst I have no objection to the diversification of the sugar industry, simply because of the current cost of production and sale price for sugar, care must be taken as to what it is viable to pursue. It will be interesting to see what the company will diversify part of its cane lands to that will bring wealth to our country, bearing in mind that time is not on the company’s side.
- It is a known fact over many years that neither trade unions, politicians or management have command and control over sugar workers, especially cane harvesters. This category acts independently, because of their perception that they are indispensable. In common parlance, they call the shots. Since Mr Vieira does not believe that the tail is wagging the dog, then I trust that he will shortly show to the nation that the dog is indeed wagging its tail, because if he doesn’t I will have to remind him. According to news reports there has been a total shutdown on all estates over the past 2 days in solidarity with the Wales’ workers.
- The decision to close Wales Estate, which incidentally by Mr Vieira’s admission was made by the board and not the Ministry of Agriculture as was earlier communicated, was communicated a week or so ago, but yet Mr Vieira and his board want the 1,700 workers to wait until October this year (9 months hence) when they may be offered a relief plan. At the sole meeting between the unions and corporate management on the impending closure, the latter, according to news reports, could not have offered any comfort on the number of workers who will be displaced and deployed to Uitvlugt, which defies Mr Vieira’s undertaking that “most will be absorbed by Uitvlugt estate.” What “most” means is anyone’s guess.
- In my missive, I made absolutely no mention of public servants’ pay increases. My reference was to sugar workers and the focus was on the years 1992-2000, which were referenced by Mr Vieira in his letter of January 27 captioned ‘A little more time is needed to disclose a plan for the sugar industry’. I repeat, for this period sugar workers were awarded an aggregate increase of 300%, and to illustrate the magnitude of pay increases in the period reference was made to the years 1992-1995 when an “average of 24% was awarded each year”. So it’s no accounting gimmick that the employment costs rose from $4.6 billion in 1992 to $12 billion in 2000, an increase of 260%; pay increases for the same period rose by 300%. There are a range of items that come under employment costs, including wages and salaries. Sugar workers did not receive 2 adjustments during the period; increases for the public service were not applicable to the sugar industry. I will humbly ask Mr Vieira to recant his statement that sugar workers “got 2 adjustments when the public servants only got one”, because if he doesn’t sugar workers may very well demand a hefty retroactive payment.
- Editor, Mr Vieira needs to forgive me for not knowing that he never worked at Houston, but for one who professes to be a seasoned agriculturist as could be gleaned from his many writings and commentaries on sugar, I think I will be interesting for him to investigate what went wrong there that caused the ‘workers to die’ on them.
“Handed down boardroom decisions” in the context of GuySuCo, simply means, together with management, taking critical decisions which will potentially chart a new course for the company for those who will be affected by them and see they buy into them, rather than handing them down to management to implement. I repeat my earlier plea that given the “parlous” state of the sugar industry; it needs all hands on board to turn it around in the interest of the nation and its people.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Parmanand
