We are reprinting the letter below even although it appeared in our edition yesterday because the end portion of it was inadvertently omitted.
Dear Editor,
Sugar workers experienced one of their worst years in 2010 and in an effort to ameliorate the public outcry, the President announced a one-off 5% payment on Wednesday. This will give them a little bonus for the holiday, but will make life no better in the New Year. This will also be the third consecutive year that sugar workers will receive small or no wage increases, as opposed to other public sectors. It will also be the first time in nearly five decades that the workers will receive no Annual Production Incentive (API) with the future of the sugar corporation hanging in the balance, although the world sugar price has been steadily rising and now stands at US33.5 cents per lb, the highest since 1982 and rising further.
The Moyne Commission that came just after the shooting to death of four Leonora sugar workers in 1939 recommended the payment of an annual production incentive in an effort to discourage absenteeism and increase production. This recommendation was only honoured with the advent of Dr Cheddi Jagan into the political arena, especially after his election to the legislature in 1947. As a result of his constant agitation, Bookers and Jessels agreed in 1952 to pay an Annual Production Bonus (APB) at the end of each year based on annual output. The APB was renamed Annual Production Incentive (API) after nationalization in 1976. While the workers will not receive any API under the Jagdeo administration, GAWU was at pains to point out that in the worst year of production in the history of sugar when output fell to 129 thousand tons, the Hoyte administration paid five days API to workers in 1989.
What has clearly been under attack under the Jagdeo administration is the union’s right to collective bargaining. Against great odds GAWU successfully concluded a collective agreement with GuySuCo in 1978 that superseded an existing three-year minimum wage agreement between the TUC and the government that resulted in higher take-home pay and back pay for sugar workers. Again in 1989 when sugar was at it lowest, a collective agreement between GuySuCo and GAWU led to a revival of the sugar industry.
In 1986, veteran trade unionist Leslie Melville shocked the nation with the finding of his ground-breaking survey which showed that the minimum wage at the time purchased less food that the slaves received from their masters. Today under tedious conditions and a back-breaking cane-cutting job along with uncertain seasonality of employment, the annual take-home pay for the sugar workers is even less than the minimum wage. It is no wonder that there is such attrition and absenteeism in the sugar industry. May be this is the only escape route from a starvation package.
While the bureaucrats, columnists and letter-writers are busy castigating the workers for the failures of GuySuCo, little do they understand that both GAWU and NAACIE have attempted to resolve their differences through a process of negotiation only to be met with foot-dragging, procrastination and a dilatory attitude by the administration which was unable to come up with a realistic production figure up to a few weeks ago. There are those who continue to lament the losses of GuySuCo in the two years, while deliberately ignoring what is responsible for the losses. Moreover, they also ignore the US$68 million that came from the pockets of the workers to finance the half-dead Skeldon factory. They conveniently forget that they enjoyed subsidized sugar at the expense of the worker to sweeten their tea for decades.
Even though workers have been the victims of the most unscrupulous acts in the past few years, a united trade union movement continues to be the call of the workers to protect their rights. It is because of this division that sugar and bauxite are feeling the brunt of the attack. It may well be remembered that sugar and bauxite’s united action forced the powerful Forbes Burnham to his knees in the early eighties. It is also time to remember that when the PNC government attempted to control the labour movement, Dr Harold Lutchman in a fiery presentation at a TUC special conference stated that the trade union movement cannot afford to have permanent allies but only permanent interest. Despite its closeness to the ruling party GAWU must be congratulated for defending the right of the sugar workers to a living wage. A united movement can move mountains.
Finally, so long as a day-wage can hardly buy a day-meal the sugar worker will never abandon the struggle until there is full social emancipation; this is an unwritten law that cannot be washed away, wished away, or subverted as the struggle by the sugar workers continues.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
