The University of Guyana (UG) unions have voiced their disappointment over the handling of workers’ issues during the most recent meeting of the UG Council, which took place last Thursday and said they are now forced to consider other options.
In a joint press statement, the University of Guyana Senior Staff Association (UGSSA) and the University of Guyana Workers’ Union (UGWU) said they are “extremely disappointed” that the University of Guyana Council did not make any decisions on matters relating to workers during the meeting.
The unions had rejected unilaterally-imposed salary increases by the University’s Administration, which has maintained that the increases were all that it could afford, and they were told that it would be dealt with by the UG Council. They have also been calling for a forensic audit of the university so that they could verify the administration’s claims given that in recent years revenues have increased as well as the subvention from central government.
The statement explained that the Council meeting’s 17-item agenda featured matters relating to workers listed as the 15th and 16th items, with the last one being “any other business.”
“We must ask how committed those who prepared the agenda were to actually discussing the worker related items and deciding upon them,” the statement said.
It added that no decision was made by the Council on the unions’ continued call for a forensic audit of the finances of the university nor was there any response to requests to have a special subcommittee set up to deal with human resources issues. “Instead, the matter is deferred until the next Council meeting which might be in April. The decision was made to circulate the report for comments from the administration and the unions,” the statement added.
It also noted that the Council also did not respond to a letter that was sent from the unions since January of this year and which asked whether Council members would consider meeting with the staff. It noted that in the letter they also enquired how the Council enforces its decisions, since, from their perspective, over the last few years it appeared to the workers that the Council “kept making decisions that would simply be ignored by the Administration.”
“It also asked about the contractual situation of a number of senior administrators. The Unions asked the administration when the contracts of a number of senior administrators would end, given that some persons’ contracts might be nearing an end, and the Unions wished to have them evaluated as part of any contract renewal process,” it added.
The unions said by the time the letter, item 16 on the agenda, was discussed, the meeting was no longer quorate, and no decisions could be taken.
They further said that the manner in which the meeting was conducted affirmed that while individual members of the Council may possess interest and enthusiasm, it is not enough to galvanise the council into action.
“The University Unions are very clear: what they pursue are the rights of workers, and for the benefit of staff and students of the University. They are interested in transparency and accountability. These matter are not personal in nature – what is at stake is far larger than individual personalities and friendships,” the statement said.
They criticised the approach of Pro-Chancellor Major General (Ret’d) Joseph Singh at the meeting and expressed a lack of confidence in him.
“The University’s staff must now consider what options they possess, given that it seems Council cannot be relied on to function as the impartial arbiter it could be and ideally should be,” the statement added.
