Dear Editor,
One is stimulated by the commentary made in the letter headed: ‘Core developmental issues have been dealt with very superficially since 2006’ in SN of December 23, with particular reference to the sugar industry.

“Reality check No. 1:- 2010 will remain a tough year for GuySuCo.”

a)  It is noteworthy that only one candidate has been identified as ‘the best brains in sugar’; while the questions following are to be put to the Chief Executive – a nuance that seems to separate the two levels of decision-making.

b)  Questions posed

1.  About Mechanisation

It is useful to note the following commentary by a group of international consultants in a report to Guysuco in 2002, adverting to the ‘Potential to Increase Cane Production from Private Cane Farmers’:

“Gains in cane quality could be made more difficult with the increased use of machinery for the harvesting and transport operations.  Experience from other sugar industries indicates that a switch from hand loading to the mechanical loading of sugarcane often increases the level of extraneous matter in the delivered cane supply.  Furthermore, a switch from hand harvesting to mechanical harvesting often has the same outcome.  Normally, over time, industries improve their methods of machinery operation to improve the quality of cane.  However, this often requires a financial incentive.  The most likely incentive is through the cane payment system where higher cane quality is rewarded through a higher payment and lower cane quality is penalized by a lower cane payment.  However, to make an incentive program truly effective, the facility must also operate at maximum efficiency.”

Additionally GuySuco has already experienced poor performance from at least one contractor to whom mechanical tillage was outsourced during this year.

The issue of outsourcing in operations that demand high performance levels within strict timelines, has to be examined with the utmost care, especially in the sugar industry where the impact is long term and cannot be readily reversed if necessary.  Nor would even the financial compensation for the poor services rendered assuage the situation.

2.  Inter-mixings

It is difficult to understand the mixed reference to Skeldon and the remaining estates so far “the mix of cropping and grinding” is concerned.  This is not, and has never been identified as a problem in the sugar industry.

Skeldon happens to be an exceptional situation, despite its being the centrepiece of GuySuCo’s forward-looking Strategic Plan of 1998-2008, which, incidentally, has not been mentioned in recent discourse, in deference to the turnaround plan.

A more substantive reason for prospective cane farmers not coming on board as planned was that the Booker Tate management at the time advised them that the necessary agricultural development was their own responsibility – a glaring contradiction to the partnership which must only have been envisaged in the Strategic Plan.  Much too late there has been a policy change to encourage development through facilitative funding.

3. The snychronisation of “the production chain” is an obvious given.  The focus of the commentary here ignores the general history of efficiency in the sugar industry.

4.  Machine utilisation

The point here is well taken.  The industry did once operate a machinery pool based at Albion Estate.  Nor is ‘leasing’ unknown to the industry.  Some of the constraints had to do with timekeeping, breakdowns, general maintenance, etc, which would point to the need for thorough screening of the ‘leasors.’

5.  Relationship with GAWU

The observation here is to be heartily supported.  Most observers will be concerned about the evidence of disconnections not only between the corporation and the union, but palpably, between management and workers.  A comprehensive remedial strategy needs to be designed and implemented.  In fact, appropriate analysis at the time would have revealed information that would have made communication a relevant component of the turnaround plan.

6.  Contracts of employment

Well intentioned as is the commentary here, it will be well advised to tread cautiously, based on objective examination of existing conditions of employment, not to mention the possible legal implications.

More importantly, however, is the further implication of penalties as a component of employment, which can force the management cadre involved to do two things:

a)  form itself into an association to defend its interests;

b)  seek employment elsewhere.

In relation to a) and b) above, the legitimate question can be asked, which other institution is currently required to respond to the standards being demanded of GuySuCo?  There is need for reflection on a broader view that would embrace a policy for performance across comparator organisations.

One last pause: if the facts do show that managers are so well paid to make and to execute decisions, then an explicit construct should be designed to ensure that their authority is not peremptorily over-ridden by non-managers, who may be in a position to deny responsibility for negative outcomes.

The principle can then better be applied of reviewing and rewarding performance by the relevant  and ‘responsible’ stakeholders.

Yours faithfully,
E. B. John