Dear Editor,
We are never amused by the position taken by Mr Mohamed Akeel since he exited his job as the Chief Labour Officer. The record will show that he has been acting and advising big business interests in the country.
With respect to the National Minimum Wage Order, Mr. Akeel again showed his preference for big business interests and subtly attacks a minimum wage of $35,000 and the five-day work week. This is brought out by the question he asks, “Can a developing country afford to have the wheels of production going for 5 days or increase cost of production by overtime payment and risk limiting access to overseas markets?” Reading through the letter, it is clear that Mr. Akeel is making out a case for garment manufacturers whom he believes, if not given a respite, can cause “hundreds of workers, mostly females, (to) be on the breadline.” It should be mentioned that garment manufacturers had a free rein for in excess of 10 years, and even when wage increases were announced for certain categories of workers, they were not affected since it was felt that this group was at an initial stage of job creation and tapping into the overseas market. After this extended holiday period, we find it difficult to believe that they cannot pay workers a minimum wage of $35,000 per month or US$40 per week. Paying less than this can only be seen as exploitation and will need an investigation as to the prices being paid by the big companies, such as JC Penny and the distributors of Victoria Secret lingerie. Our Guyanese workers should not be exploited to make foreign entrepreneurs and companies rich.
Akeel then went on to cite the Teemal and Labour Amendment cases. These have absolutely no relevance with the National Minimum Wage Order. His grouse seems to be also that there was lack of consultation and that the correct procedure under law was not followed. We would like to state that much more was done in accordance with the law on this issue than he ever attempted to do when he was Chief Labour Officer. In fact, since last May a subcommittee of the Tripartite body, including ourselves and Mr. Samuel Goolsarran, Consultant Adviser of the Consultative Association of Guyanese Industry Ltd (CAGI), among others, deliberated on the issue of a national minimum wage.
In fact, we had taken that decision when we had agreed to a new minimum wage for certain categories of workers commencing May 1, 2012. The position that the Ministry of Labour was working on a national minimum wage to be implemented in 2013 was publicly made known. At every stage of the deliberation of the Committee, we were advised by the CAGI representatives, including Mr. Goolsarran (who incidentally is out of the country), that regular consultations have been held with the business community and in fact, they are summoned to meetings every two months to discuss industrial relations matters. The minimum wage issue at the Tripartite level was approved as early as February 2013 and we were advised by the Hon. Minister of Labour, Dr. N.K. Gopaul that he would take it Cabinet for its no-objection. Subsequently, we were told that Cabinet set up a Ministerial Task Force to look at the issue, a position which was made public by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon.
Additionally, we heard statements from the Minister of Labour during the 2013 budget debate in the National Assembly while responding to a question from the Opposition that very shortly a new minimum wage with working hours will be implemented. That was public knowledge. Again on May Day, the Minister in an address to the Trades Union Congress conference at which leading trade unionists and Opposition politicians were present, indicated that he had draft regulations on his desk which he was looking at for the implementation of a new national minimum wage order. His Excellency, President Donald Ramotar also on the eve of Guyana’s independence on May 25, 2013 indicated quite clearly and emphatically that the Government of Guyana will introduce a new national minimum wage of $35,000 and a 40-hour work week, as well as ratify the International Labour Organization’s Convention 189 on domestic workers. Those positions were followed by advertisements in the national newspapers and the Official Gazette more than a month before the July 1, 2013 deadline for the implementation of the National Minimum Wage Order. The Order was also tabled in the National Assembly during this period of time. There was no concern expressed by anyone. We were not sure whether, as Mr. Christopher Ram pointed out, these businessmen were asleep. To speak then of consultation and awareness, Akeel is begging the issue to prop up his consultancy.
It should be made abundantly clear that CAGI is the recognized business entity by the International Labour Organization on the Tripartite Committee and this has been so from the time Guyana joined the ILO.
In addition, CAGI has been the business body consulted on all the major labour legislation we have in this country. Notwithstanding this, at the meeting with representatives of the Chambers of Commerce a week before the implementation date of July 1, 2013 of the new National Minimum Wage Order, the Hon. Minister gave the undertaking to these concerned businessmen (who by that time became awake) that in the future, he will seek to broaden business representation on labour matters.
The procedure therefore which was followed was exhausted and the duration was quite significant. Attempts therefore to put the issue on hold can only be seen as a deliberate attempt at procrastination. The format of the new National Minimum Wage Order is exactly the same used for decades by the Ministry of Labour and Mr. Akeel when he was Chief Labour Officer when dealing with the issue of the minimum wage for certain categories of workers.
It should be noted that the National Minimum Wage and its implementation, as well as the implementation of the new hours of work is historic. In that for the first time, it’s being implemented in independent Guyana. If there are technical flaws, then that should not be the reason for its recall or being repealed. The workers of this country deserve at least the minimum wage and working hours that have been prescribed by the Ministerial Order.
We recognize that there are some archaic laws under existing statutes and these were taken into consideration by the Tripartite body. These may have to be amended so as to bring them to modern day reality, thus avoiding the issues of conflict raised by Mr. Akeel. As members of the Tripartite Committee we were of the impression up to the end of May 2013 that this issue had widespread support. We still believe it has widespread support with the exception of the garment manufacturers and some security establishments, the latter of which endorsed the minimum wage, but mainly wanted renewal of contract or increases in their contract charges to compensate for the increases made for the workers.
The last piece of advice for Mr. Akeel would be to, rather than publicly question the role of managers and their entitlements, he should read the case of Mahasrudeen vs. the Guyana Sugar Corporation Ltd. which went to the Court of Appeal and was adjudicated in favour of Mahasrudeen.
Counsel for Mashasrudeen was Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashton Chase and those who gave evidence as experts were James Dastajir of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union (GAWU) and Nanda Gopaul of the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE). The Court ruled that Mahasrudeen was entitled to payment under the Factories Act.
We, as members of the Tripartite Committee, are fully supportive, and will prevent resolutely, any attempt to derail this process.
Yours faithfully,
Norris Witter
President, Guyana Trades Union Congress
Kenneth Joseph
General Secretary, the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees
