Dear Editor,
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) has noted the contents of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) column titled `PPP and GAWU’s scare tactics must be challenged’ which appeared in the April 30, 2017 Kaieteur News. While the PPP is more than capable of responding on its own, our Union feels it is necessary to bring clarity and offer a response to the column.
At the outset, we were most disturbed by the innuendos lobbed at the GAWU seemingly in an attempt, which would be futile, to disparage and bring disrepute to our Union. This is a well-worn tactic. We wish to advise the APNU and moreover all Guyanese that the GAWU as a Trade Union has always maintained its independence and possesses its own organizational structure. Our Union recognizes that our diverse membership is supportive of the various political organisations in Guyana and has respected our members’ rights and choices.
The column points to the increase of the industry’s employment costs in the early 1990s but fails for some reason to recall that massive devaluation of the Guyana dollar resulted in a substantial increase in the cost-of-living. Is it that the APNU is saying that the sugar workers’ wages should have not been adjusted to offset the decline in their purchasing power? Moreover, we cannot fail to recognize that the industry’s operations are largely labour intensive and, therefore, the employment costs relative to overall costs being what it is should not be surprising.
The APNU author then goes on to say that “…since 2001, the sugar industry wage bill has accounted for 63% of total costs”. We find the statement surprising since GuySuCo in its recent interaction with the Parliamentary Economic Services Committee disclosed that the employment cost was 56 per cent of overall costs in 2015 of which 6 per cent accounted for the Senior Staffers. The column also said, unambiguously, that the state provided some $500B to the industry over the last ten years. But, various press reports have advised that the Government provided about $48B to the industry. The two figures are vastly apart and the inflation of the sum by the author is perplexing. The sum quoted by the APNU column, we feel constrained to point out, had it been real, would be more than sufficient to allow the industry to diversify its product base and to ensure its sustainability and viability.
Reference is also made to GuySuCo’s Crop Diversification programme which began in 1978 and came to an end in 1993. That programme, we wish to remind, was discontinued after it was deemed by the Hoyte Government as a massive failure and was taking away valuable man hours and resources needed for the core business of sugar. The shedding of that burden allowed the industry to focus on its main activity and resulted in the industry experiencing improved strides.
The column then goes on to posit that canning of fruits and vegetables offer the industry significant opportunities. The optimism spouted, however, is not grounded in reality and, therefore, to push in this direction without the many missing essential elements in place for success would be foolhardy and short-sighted and would be a wasting of resources in the circumstances. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be prudent for us to work along with existing farmers who, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), see about thirty per cent of their output wasted rather than seeking to enlarge the farming community without proper facilities and more importantly compensatory markets?
Interestingly too, we noted that the APNU pointed out that the industry can become successful producing “sugar, bagasse, ethanol and reuseable energy”. We agree with those familiar suggestions and wonder why steps are not being taken in this direction. GAWU urges that our presentation to the Government of February 17, 2017 be examined in a critical and unbiased manner.
While the APNU talks about workers being leased lands we see that as continuing talk and the basics are not in place to encourage workers to take up farming. At Wales we see no concerted efforts in this direction except for a meeting with a few workers offering them lands at the extreme end of the cultivation. The cost of land development is prohibitive and the costs of transportation would be high. Given the depression that has gripped the communities of Wales since closure, farming may not hold out such a grand promise. Can one blame the workers for any show of reluctance?
GAWU maintains that a diversified sugar industry harnessing the full potential of the cane plant and moving to a more wide-ranging product base offers the industry the best opportunities for its turnaround. We are not aware of the reasons for not going along this course especially in view of the overwhelming evidence that this direction will enhance export earnings, reduce imports, assist in moving to a greener economy, and most of all, protect the livelihoods of thousands of workers and their families.
Yours faithfully,
Seepaul Narine
General Secretary
GAWU
