GR: What are your views on the effectiveness of trade union representation in Guyana today?
LL: I think that one of the main problems here, perhaps the main problem, is the ‘disconnect’ between the constitutional provisions that legitimise trade union representation and the widespread failure on the part of employers to honour those provisions. Frankly, I doubt that there are too many other provisions of the constitution that are ignored more pointedly. Both government and the private sector, over the years, have failed to do everything that they could to ensure effective worker representation at the trade union level. In my opinion, at the level of government, it has largely been a question of indifference. We have had unions representing state employees for decades but there are always conflicts, some of them lasting for years and they are yet to be resolved. Some people will argue that a large part of the problem has to do with the politicisation of the trade union movement. In my opinion both the state and the unions must share responsibility in that regard. It is unquestionably true that some trade unions have been known to openly take partisan political sides from time to time. When that happens, effective worker representation becomes compromised.
As far as the state is concerned there have also been some blatant weaknesses. I believe, for example, that the excesses of entities like BCGI [Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc.], in which the Russian mining giant RUSAL holds the majority shares has been a function of the indifference of the state to the company’s uncompromising anti-union posture. I think that that is unacceptable. At the end of the day, when these issues arise, the state has to assert itself in defence of the constitution. That has not happened so that we have a situation in which foreign-run companies (and RUSAL is not the only one) have taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, the situation could grow worse. We have already seen evidence of an anti-union posture by at least one foreign company that has come to Guyana to provide support services for the oil & gas sector.
GR: Some people would say that the foreign companies are simply following the example being set by our own private sector. What is your reaction to that?
LL: I have had to answer that question before, recently. It is a valid point. On the whole the Guyana private sector has shown little regard for the right of their workers to be members of trade unions. Many of them while not saying so openly have actually created conditions that discourage any talk about trade union membership. We are aware that issues like safety and health and conditions of service are serious issues in some private sector quarters and that there is a deliberate effort in many instances to deny aggrieved workers the kind of cover that you get from trade union representation. Here again I have to say that our own Department of Labour can be far more vocal on the matter of trade union representation. That has not been the case over the years.
GR: What about the role of the Business Support Organisations?
LL: They will probably tell you that that is not their job. They will tell you that they advocate on behalf of business owners. At any rate, here is the real problem. If you look at the Business Support Organisations you will find that they are very much a tight group and that the leadership is very carefully selected. Have you ever heard the Private Sector Commission making a case for trade union representation? I doubt it very much. The leaders and spokespersons for the private sector are very carefully selected. They are selected in such a way as to ensure that those who speak for business articulate the interests of business and trade union representation is not a business interest. I am not saying that some employers do not pay some measure of attention to some worker concerns. But the whole purpose of the trade union is to ensure that there is an institution that has a vested interest in the welfare of the worker and that there is no competing interest.
I believe that in just the same way that local content and other related issues are being furiously debated now that an oil & gas sector is on the horizon, so too should workers’ rights and trade union representation be discussed. At the level of the TUC we have already begun some initial discussions on this issue. We have been looking at the whole question of the posture of the oil and gas interests, including local interests, towards trade union representation. Frankly, we are not particularly encouraged by what we see. There has been at least one instance recently of an environmental alarm being raised over a business initiative involving the oil & gas industry which was felt to have a likely negative effect on a particular community. I believe that that issue has passed. The point is, however, that a strong case can be made for a role for the trade union movement in ensuring that safety standards are high. We have the EPA but I believe that unions too have a role to play.
GR: Is there a serious future for the trade union movement in Guyana?
LL: I trust you will forgive me if I say I believe that I know where that question comes from. Frankly, I think it is a relevant question; relevant because we have seen the trade union movement battered and bruised and abused over the years and we have seen a loss of membership, a decline in the leadership and a seeming loss of interest in what trade unionism has to offer. For all that, I do believe that there is a future for trade unionism. I say so because I believe that there is beginning to emerge a convergence of circumstances that will bring the issue of workers’ rights even more to the forefront of our national existence. I can see a situation arising in which there will be need, perhaps even greater need than existed previously, for there to be a mechanism for the institutionalised defence of workers’ rights. I can see a situation in which trade unions and their leaders are going to have to lead the charge against the abuse of workers and the institutional lawlessness and the greed and the corruption that prevails in some quarters. I think that the economic transformation that is apparent in Guyana will result in the emergence of circumstances that will create a greater need for the workers to be defended. But I think that the nature of the movement will change. By that I mean that more enlightened, more capable, more qualified young people will begin to pay an interest in trade unionism, not just as an academic pursuit but as a tool that will help to create a more just society. There will be several stages in that process the first of which will be the ‘marketing’ of trade unionism as a worthwhile pursuit. Circumstances are already creating a fresh wave of interest in the labour agenda. As I said, I am optimistic. If you ask me what we are doing at this time I can tell you that we, the TUC that is, are working both inside and outside the movement to rekindle an interest in the trade union as a mechanism for protecting workers’ rights. We have to wait and see what happens down the road.
GR: Do you have a view on the media and trade unions?
LL: I think that sections of the media entirely overlook the fact that our constitution makes provision for trade unions and trade union representation. What is clear, to a greater or lesser extent in our media houses, is a strong appetite for embracing the constitution in some matters and a far lesser appetite when it comes to others. I need hardly tell you that there has been a lot of talk recently about the importance of the constitution. None of it, however, has had to do with respecting those provisions that have to do with workers’ rights. In my opinion that is a glaring double standard. When last have you seen or heard any media house making a strong case for the upholding of those constitutional provisions that have to do with trade union representation? When last have they raised searching questions about the treatment of workers and their lack of access to effective trade union representation? When last has any media house attempted to conduct a really searching inquiry into safety and health conditions in many private sector workplaces? These things do not happen. One is tempted to think that the problem here has to do with vested interests. Can media houses, for example, afford to be too vigorous in their criticism of anti-worker, anti-union postures in some of the big private sector entities right here in Guyana? Have you ever heard, for example, of the unionisation of employees of commercial banks in Guyana? I doubt that that would be allowed to happen without major social upheaval in the society. Frankly, I believe that the anti-trade union representation for workers posture by the private sector is largely responsible for the high incidence of infringement of workers’ rights as well as many if not most of the safety and health transgressions that impact on the well-being of workers. The reality is that there are big businesses here in Guyana who deliberately perpetrate and conceal safety and health transgressions knowing that even if they are caught the law is probably unlikely to be enforced to its full effect. I believe, for example, that there are always likely to be serious, sometimes fatal mining-related accidents because the system, in the absence of some kind of union oversight, is very often not particularly reliable.
GR: What about the performance of the trade union movement itself. Has it given a good account of itself?
LL: We definitely cannot give ourselves an ‘A’ grade. I believe that to a large extent we, as trade unions and as an overall movement, have been largely responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves today. There is evidence of various types of deficiencies at the leadership level of many, perhaps most of our unions. In some instances we have witnessed the collapse of some unions. Others are struggling. I must tell you, however, that there are signs of rebuilding. Frankly, I believe that the conditions have now emerged in our country that make trade unions as relevant as they have ever been. But to return to our failings, we have been neglectful of training at all levels, particularly the workplace level in those cases where workers are unionised. I think too that our leaders have been undertrained and that some of us have not really led effectively. I think too that in some instances gaps have developed between trade union leaders and workers. Sometimes those of us who lead are bureaucrats and that becomes a problem given that our members are overwhelmingly from the working class. Understanding the role of the union, why we exist and what are the causes that we are defending is important. When we march on May Day that must mean something beyond just marching. We must understand why we do what we do. Unions must provide workers with a cause (or causes) to defend. When we fail to do so, when we have no cause we have no trade union movement.
GR: Apart from being a trade unionist you have developed a reputation as a prominent political commentator. Do you see any inconsistency there?
LL: It depends on what you mean by a political commentator. If by that you mean that I make public comments on issues of national interest, many of which are political in nature, then, yes, I am a political commentator. I believe that when national issues arise I should have a view as a trade union leader. I believe it is a question of providing fair and constructive comment. Do I take sides? If I support a point of view I say so. If I don’t, I am equally frank. There is a school of thought about issues of balance and objectivity that appear to come from the media houses. I believe we need far more clarity on those issues. It is not my opinion, for example, that there is a single media house in Guyana that practices what one might call pure objectivity. In fact, if you look at the reporting of the various media houses on the political issues that have arisen in the past months you will see that they have all taken their own positions and that in many instances those positions are grounded in some sort of prejudice. The reality is that as citizens of a small country with a particular socio-political arrangement, the issue of impartiality is a difficult one to deal with. I have less of a problem with people who have partial views than with those who pretend not to.
