Dear Editor,
The relevance of trade unions should not be de-emphasized given the level of exploitation by employers against non-unionized employees. This is reflected in the millions of dollars recovered by the Ministry of Labour for failure to pay overtime, holidays with pay, premium time, minimum wages, pay in lieu of notice and severance pay, all of which are statutory entitlements and minimum conditions of employment.
They are relevant since unions focus on issues that encompass and improve on all those entitlements, in addition to other fringe benefits that enhance the welfare of employees not provided for by legislation.
They are relevant since they provide an outlet for the satisfaction of workers’ needs through their collective nature, and reduce the perception of discrimination since all benefits gained are distributed equitably among employees irrespective of their political affiliation.
They are relevant since they provide a strong institutional system for the orderly resolution of conflicts through the grievance procedure, where the interests of workers are adequately represented and resolved provided the relevant supportive agency in the Ministry of Labour acts responsibly and impartially.
Trade unions are now protected by legislative enactment in the Trade Union Recognition Act, once the union satisfies the provision in the act that it has majority membership within the bargaining unit.
So, irrespective of the view that the influence of unions is waning because of a decline in the mobilization of new membership, trade unions do provide an important function in acting as a buffer against unscrupulous employers.
However, their relevance is sometimes diminished by the perception that trade unions do not act in the best interest of workers because of political affiliation; that representation through collective bargaining reflects political antagonism or alignment; and that a desire or willingness to find solutions is conditioned more by political rather than industrial considerations.
As such, people will not be stimulated to support trade unions where the leadership is perceived as representing their own interest and where agreement on issues reflects a bias in favour of the employer, whether private or public.
And, since bargaining units comprise people from different political persuasions, support or lack thereof from members will depend on the level of objectivity used during negotiations and whether the outcome is favourable or unfavourable, and herein lies another reason for a lack of interest and internal dissension.
Apart from the foregoing, experience has also shown that the relationship between management and unions is still steeped in the traditional conflict approach where bargaining tends to be inflexible and uncompromising, and militancy is seen as a means of enhancing leadership.
I feel therefore that both management and unions should now contemplate using the ‘interest based’ approach to negotiations, which emphasizes the importance of information, persuasion and co-operation, and where coercion and conflict are viewed as dysfunctional and counter-productive.
Yours faithfully,
D Sookdeo
