One could not help but be most impressed by the panel discussion moderated by NCN’s Martin Goolsarran with a GuySuCo management team consisting of the CEO Errol Hanoman, the Finance Director and the Industrial Relations Specialist.
The discourse focused on the current strike by GAWU in the sugar industry.
Persons who have been involved in sugar, or have been acquainted with the industry for any extended period, would recall that it has experienced some really bad times in the past. They would also have thought that those days (and nights) were behind them, particularly when the 21st century was exuberantly ushered in, with much fanfare and fireworks, across the globe, brightening all our hopes for the future.
In the sugar industry however, sober and more pragmatic thinking was already at work, contemplating the prospects of the EU dismantling the preferential arrangements hitherto accorded ACP sugar producers. The local sugar industry had accordingly formulated a Strategic Plan (for the period 1998 – 2008) aimed basically at making appropriate adjustments to production, productivity and markets in order to compensate for the anticipated negative impact of the EU’s decision.
The core of the strategy was identified as the new Skeldon Factory. Its 350 tch capacity would contribute substantially to a planned overall increase to 500,000 tons sugar per annum.
Perhaps, more importantly, was the aim to substantially reduce the average cost of production; to extend Caricom market and size; and add value through special sugars, co-generation, a distillery and refinery (if feasible). In 1999 sugar production was 321,438 tonnes. Interestingly records show that with labour costs at 57% of total costs, cost of production in 1999 was US¢ 17.63 per lb. GuySuCo has developed a matrix relating total labour costs to cost of production in any one year – a useful monitoring exercise geared to achieving the target of US¢ 12 per lb. For example, from Annual Reports available between 1998 to 2002 the following Table was extracted:
According to the recent panel discussion the current employment total has not changed significantly from that of 19,000 recorded in 2001. In fact the point was stressed by the CEO that the Industry needed its workers. Notwithstanding, however, plans were being implemented to counter the reduction of manual labour by increasing resort to mechanisation of certain operations.
If only on hindsight, it was clear from the panel’s discussion that the act of ‘planned attrition’ sent a more instructive message to sugar workers than may possibly have been intended (despite the promotional campaign related to the Skeldon Factory). The perceived diminution of the industry meant that it was not one in which to invest careers. So that even at the level of ‘cane harvesters’ employment options had become an active consideration. Logically therefore it could be expected that among the managerial/professional ranks there would be more urgent second thoughts about individual and organisational longevity. Not only the grapevine, but also Annual Reports up to 2002 revealed the consistently substantial flight of professional human resources, which incidentally has not subsided.
And yet, like the very Strategic Plan, there has been minimal evidence since of substantive attention being paid to the critical human resources issue in the sugar industry.
The current CEO, in one of his pronouncements, did admit to the significant depletion in the technical knowledge base at the managerial level, as a result of the continued departure of requisite skills and competencies. He omitted to mention the critical loss of institutional memory and of best (agricultural) practices.
So it was interesting to note that in the repeated reference to GuySuCo’s current ‘turnaround plan’ (an inelegant terminology even in organisational jargon), the focal points enumerated included only the following:
i) Skeldon Factory – the centre of sugar’s expansion hopes. (NB. The upgrading of the Albion Factor seems to have fallen off the agenda);
ii) Expansion of production at Blairmont;
iii) Expansion, or rather compensation for production shortfalls at LBI, following the abandonment of the agriculture at the former Diamond Estate; and if memory serves me,
iv) Upgrading of capacity/production at Uitvlugt.
Despite the clear enunciation of these production foci, one continued to harbour the feeling that something was missing. One warning signal was the earlier exile of the former Human Resources Director from the Centre to the Region; and the consequential replacement with reduced sapiential authority in the Human Resources Management Function; together with that of the Industrial Relations representation. A legitimate question therefore was in which direction was the industry in fact turning.
Yet again like the original Strategic Plan (ended in 2008) not a single identification of human resources as a critical factor has been announced. Who then, one must wonder, will operationalise the ‘turnaround’ plan? One must also wonder what was learnt from the well documented analysis which projected that Skeldon would require 1,475 extra workers by 2005; and in East Demerara 750 workers by the same deadline.
Indications are that these projections not only have not been realised, but that production and productivity have been undermined by a significant incidence of absenteeism – which raises the issue of management’s capacity to motivate the worker.
Already the former had missed the opportunity in not engaging the Unions involved in the new vision for the Sugar Industry in the 21st Century. And despite the most recent protestations that the Union representation was invited to the Board, one heard an eloquent silence about the latter’s active participation in the ‘turnaround’ plan.
The clear implication here is the efficacy of the communication system in the Industry, if indeed one exists. First of all, the ‘unauthorised’ stoppages this past year would seem to suggest inadequate communication between the Union (GAWU) and certain of its membership sites – possibly intimating an internal confidence gap.
Secondly, and indeed more importantly, the published exchanges between the Management and GAWU reveal at best a rather brittle relationship, which could not just be of recent vintage.
So that rather than the current stand-off between the parties being viewed in isolation, it should be seen as an extended absence, or inadequacy, of a conversation (between partners, not contenders) that should never have been allowed to falter, particularly at these critical ‘turnaround’ times. It was therefore for the Management Team to show its leadership mettle and take a proactive approach into the workers’ domain. One must note, however, GAWU’s persistently expressed reservations about the management capacity of the recently departed expatriate management team.
There are those among their local management colleagues who would attest to the limited dialogue experienced with that very team. Over time, what was once an environment known for open exchanges and a significant degree of collegial decision-making, became increasingly peremptory in its communication. The negative impact therefore on motivation generally could not be underestimated.
So that when the issue of communication was posed by the moderator to our GuySuCo panel, there was the slightly halting response that a Communications Specialist had just been appointed. It was a response that substantially begged the question, while acknowledging the need for more effective communication in the organisation.
With great respect to the decision-makers, it would not be carping to point out how limited is their design for a productive communication programme in an organisation as dispersed as GuySuCo. Quite the contrary, the intermittent forays, however technically executed (albeit by a newcomer to the industry), can by no means bridge the institutionalised communication gap. What is urgently needed is a cascade of communication scenarios involving:
i) the Executive Management and Operational Managers;
ii) Operational Managers and their teams; and
iii) these teams with the range of operatives they manage, instruct and, hopefully, control.
Of course the feedback/across mechanisms must be organised on a structured basis. The dialogue must be ongoing, so that the idea of the Union’s responsibility for communicating with its membership, must at least be complemented by Management’s sharing of information with the managed.
That the above formulation is by no means original, does not invalidate the urgent need to re-start building bridges with the Union/s. After all it is GuySuCo who has kept reiterating that the Unions must come on ‘board’.
Perhaps it is worth noting that their long institutional memory may well outweigh the insights of more recent contributors to the decision-making process in the sugar industry.
Finally one important lesson should have been learnt from the current experience. Given the grim projections for the Industry’s viability, every effort should be made to extricate from the proposed Arbitration process, a creative industrial relations framework founded in a partnership for productivity; and on a long term commitment to cost containment (rather than annual agreements) aimed at ensuring the longevity of Guyana’s sugar industry.
Yours faithfully,
E. B. John
