Dear Editor,
There is a most challenging perspective of inequity which abounds, particularly in agencies owned and managed by foreign employers in terms of employment conditions in a work environment as Guyana. Some are seen at the very least as uncaring, substantively indifferent to, indeed disrespectful of, the local labour legislation, which requires employers in Guyana to observe consistent application of benefits; and in the process, profoundly facilitates related worker representation, (even though ignored by our own banking fraternity for example). The continuing influx of foreign companies appears not to be appropriately monitored in relation to the ‘Human Services’ to which Guyanese workers have long been entitled. One does not hear of any official programme for inducting the parties into observing basic employee benefits, starting with the lowest level of entitlements. For example:
– Compulsory minimum of two weeks’ annual leave
– One month’s annual leave for monthly paid employees
– Up to 28 days Certified Sick Leave (normally after three uncertified days)
– Maternity Leave (NIS – three months)
– Registration in the National Insurance Scheme
– (Additional) Contributory Hospitalisation and Medical Insurance Scheme
– Special Leave to attend court
– Representation at national sports
– Contributory Pension Scheme
– Travel Allowance (where justified)
– Where applicable the provision of uniform/protective clothing
Certain levels may be considered eligible for increased annual leave, based on extended years of service.
In the case of compensation, it is normal, whether unionized or not, for companies to have established salary scales based on some form of job evaluation. In the specific circumstances, therefore, all employees at the same identified job grade should be paid the same applicable rate. It is however accepted that dependent on the place of origin (local and overseas) individual employees can be further compensated with allowances related to the degree of dislocation. Also there are jobs the nature of which would earn risk allowance and responsibility allowance. There is also the question of an agreed period of notice of separation by either party to be included in the employment contract. Another sensitive consideration is with regard to promotion – an exercise that demands the highest level of objectivity, through the process of performance appraisal.
Having satisfied the above requirements does not necessarily exempt the employer from acknowledging (depending on the numbers) certain employees’ right to representation by a union of their choice. This submission is made in support of the entitlement of local employees to be treated in the most balanced manner in relation to their foreign counterparts. Ideally, it would be useful if there were some arrangements that could facilitate a separate external audit of the human resources component of the company’s operations. Finally, there may well be an urgent case for reviewing aspects of our Labour legislation to take into account the behaviour of the growing number of foreign companies/agencies. A survey of comparable legislation of our CARICOM colleagues may certainly prove useful.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
