Dear Editor,
An editorial, unless otherwise stated, is usually seen as the position of the media owner. Reference is made to Stabroek News’ editorial ‘Foreign investment and the future of the labour movement,’ February 12, 2013. This editorial sets out to backdrop its position of the Guyana Trades Union Congress’ (GTUC) role in calling for the upholding of the Guyana Constitution that guarantees “the right and the duty to work” of Guyanese labour as it relates to the building of the Marriott Hotel by the foreign-owned Shanghai Construction Group (SCG). The fact that Article 22, “the right and the duty to work,” falls under the ‘Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System’ of the constitution underscores its importance and relevance to this society and its people’s well-being. Hence, it is unfortunate that this editorial sought to place the GTUC in an untenable situation where it has to defend itself and argue its case against an opponent who has total control; however, the GTUC has never shied away from a battle that is worth fighting. It is not the culture of progressive labour. To this end the unfortunate descent into caricature and discrimination against the GTUC’s leadership and the profound ignorance of the writer with regard to the national character of the GTUC, says that there is much work to be done to restore this country to one of universally acceptable standards.
The GTUC, as a national organisation, among other things, seeks to ensure it influences the social, economic and political well-being of citizens, from the womb to the tomb. This principle is informed by the fact that the workers’− past, present and future; union and non-unionised − holistic well-being is not only at the workplace but in every sphere of their lives, impacting on the quality of life they enjoy, their ability to provide for loved ones and ultimately their level/quality of production in the workplace and the nation’s development as a whole. As such, the GTUC has, among other things, fought for and secured labour laws to protect the workers; the establishment of the National Insurance Scheme (NIS); universal adult suffrage (one man one vote); internal self government; Landlord and Tenants Act; eight-hour work day; 40-hour work week; equal employment (men and women); child protection, minimum wage, Caribbean integration and free movement of people; paid vacation, sick, maternity and industrial benefits; the right to pension; the right to enjoy employment while creating and extending families (marriage and children); constitutionally enshrined fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and groups, which include the right to freedom of expression. The GTUC stands on a proud record that has been to the benefit of all and sundry, irrespective of their support, and as such will not allow any agency or person, outside of the framework of progressive Labour, to set its agenda.
And while in concluding the editorial sought to advise the GTUC what it should pay attention to, it excludes the rights and priority of Guyanese to be employed in this construction phase of the Marriott. This raises question as to whether the GTUC by making such call has offended SN, or whether the absence in recognition constitutes support for the disrespect of Guyanese labour by SCG and the contract signed by Winston Brassington on behalf of the people of Guyana. In fact, the apparent effort to divert attention from this fundamental attack on Guyanese labour, the nation’s sovereignty and laws, by pointing away from the focus under review and failing to lend a supportive voice/muscle in calling to account those responsible for this travesty, opens speculation as to intent and agenda. Further, SN is reminded that on a matter specific to its interest (withdrawal of state advertisements), the GTUC, as a matter of principle, was among the leading voices calling for a return to the funding. And whereas some have argued the withdrawal of state funding did not constitute an attack on press freedom (as claimed by SN) but it was the business’ profit you were focusing on, the GTUC embraced your position because we saw a correlation between the withdrawal of funding and its possible resultant impact on reducing and possibly eliminating a voice in society. It is to this end the GTUC joined the struggle and made the case to our constituents, persons, and the regional and international organisations we interacted with. On the other hand, it is shocking to understand the editorial’s recommendation that the GTUC concentrate on organising new members (which is a role of the individual union) in a number of agencies yet the SN, as an employer, bitterly fought NAACIE to deny the workers at this newspaper their fundamental right and freedom to join a union of choice.
Note is also taken of the description of the leaders in the federation and this forcibly brings home that the newspaper is not unmindful to continue or facilitate the engaging of discrimination on the ground of age (ageism). And while discrimination in all forms is wrong, it is interesting to note the predisposition of sectionalising even the particular discrimination. And this case is made graphic as it is recalled this was done in the presidential bid of Desmond Hoyte vis-à-vis Bharrat Jagdeo, when same was ignored with Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan vis-à-vis Desmond Hoyte. Further, this newspaper is not unmindful of employing and seeing the societal relevance and contributions of its elderly columnists and its late publisher, David de Caires, all of whom were/are older than the current leadership in the GTUC. Hence, it is difficult to understand a newspaper that makes claim to embracing universal principles but which at the same time is not put out by openly engaging in discriminating against a group and individual, whether it attends to their right to work, associate and make meaningful contribution to society. Every human being has a productive role to play in society and in a progressive society an organisation should ensure such role is respected, encouraged and embraced.
Finally, as the world strives towards democracy, underpinned by social justice, progressive media should embrace and take seriously their role of social responsibility, not only in the department of accuracy and truth, but more so since they are numbered among the foremost voices in the society they operate in to ensure that citizens’ rights and the rule of law are upheld, and that persons and organisations are held to a universal standards, regardless of who benefits from it, or who reaps the consequences of it.
And on matters of governance, in an independent and progressive society, government does not ‘rule,’ a word which connotes the expressed acceptance that citizens are the subjects of government and therefore powerless.
In modern society government exists and functions to manage the affairs of state in the interest of the people, in whom the ultimate power is vested, and who by their actions subject government to reviews, criticisms and condemnations based on the principles or instruments the people have created to protect and advance their well-being. As such, loyalty is to the principles, not the principality, and no organsiation can be credible and respected when it hunts with the wolves and runs with the hares.
The GTUC is committed to protecting rights and upholding laws and will hold all accountable. It is a position that gives meaning to its existence and we shall not waver or flinch from it!
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
General Secretary
Guyana Trades Union Congress
Editor’s note
1. The Stabroek News editorial did not deny the right of Guyanese to be employed in the construction of the Marriott Hotel; it merely expressed doubts as to whether the GTUC could take its concern “over the exclusion of Guyanese workers to the level of an effective public protest.”
2. SN did not “bitterly” fight NAACIE “to deny the workers at [the] newspaper their fundamental right and freedom to join a union of choice.” Stabroek News simply sought to ensure that the rules governing an application for recognition were followed by the union.