Dear Editor,
There was a carefully constructed letter titled ‘Sugar industry contributed US$1.6B in levy over 29 years and deserves support’ (SN December 18).
In this connection there should be no harm in including mention of the following Sugar Industry Special Funds Act of 1947 related to:
o Sugar Industry Price Stabilisation Fund
– levied at $6.00 for every ton of sugar produced-intended to supplement the price of sugar at times of poor market conditions
o Sugar Industry Rehabilitation Fund
– Levied at $480 for every ton of sugar produced – to be utilised for the rehabilitation of factories
o Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund
– Levied at $2.40 for every ton of sugar produced
It generated industry-wide programmes of community, social, sports and cultural development
The first two levies have long been abandoned, only the last of them is still ‘imposed’, even though the reason for its existence can no longer be justified.
The Special Sugar Levy was said to have been ‘imposed’ in 1974. The fact is however, that it was Bookers Sugar Estates who took the initiative to suggest to Prime Minister Burnham the ‘imposition’ of the levy on the excess profits they had just experienced and were forecasting for the next two to three years. The Company’s rationale was that since the profits boom would be shortlived they had to ensure that wage increases to be negotiated with the Union would be sustainable for the more extended future-a forewarning which the Prime Minister did not heed.
Injudiciously as it turned out, he proceeded to commit to a programme of free education (‘from cradle to the grave’ was the expression) which, predictably, proved unsustainable, as history would have recorded.
Few would remember, however, that the Union immediately took advantage of the status of nationalisation, so strongly endorsed by Dr. Cheddi Jagan to demand in 1977 an earlier ‘profit-sharing’ provision from the new GuySuCo, retroactive from 1974 to 1976; apparently overlooking the record that the first two years were the Booker years, while the 1976 first crop was still under their management.
Interestingly enough it was only in May 1976 that GAWU became the recognised bargaining agent of the sugar workers, with Dr. Cheddi Jagan as Honorary President.
By their own account when the matter of profit-sharing was raised earlier before the Crane Tribunal appointed by the Government to adjudicate thereon, amongst other issues, the Union was requested to submit a memorandum setting out its case’, which it undertook to do, but did not pursue.
In the prolonged absence of any further discussion, instead a strike ultimatum was issued and put into effect on August 23, 1977. On August 25, the press reported that 3.5 acres of cane were illegally burnt at Chateau Margot, then a section of LBI Estate. The PPP came out in support of GAWU on August 29.
It turned out to be, possibly, the most prolonged strike in the history of the sugar industry-lasting 135 days, until January 6, 1978 when it was called off by GAWU.
Due, however, to the government’s mobilisation of public servants to harvest the second crop, alongside returning workers, that crop produced 137,181 tons sugar of the year’s total of 241, 527 tons.
In its press release of January 5, 1975 GAWU was quoted as saying, “… faced with a heartless and ruthless regime on the one hand, and divided labour movement unwilling to take united action on the other, GAWU considers that the continuation of the strike would not be in the interest of the workers and the nation”. The last reference was to: our TUC; the Oilfield Workers Trade Union of Trinidad & Tobago; and UK Trade Unionists who were invited to blockade the unloading of Guyana sugar in the U.K.
As it turned out the U.K Trade Unionists, after talks with all the parties, eventually recommended against the requested blockade.
At the time of nationalisation I had become Chief Personnel Officer, vice the late Harold Davis who was appointed Executive Chairman of the new Corporation.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
