By 1988/89, President Desmond Hoyte was already committed to his Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) and was not to be given an easy ride. If only in brief, the ensuing struggle is a story that must be retold before we consider President Cheddi Jagan’s response.
In the short and medium term, ERP-type restructuring is usually very costly for the working people and workers’ representatives in Guyana did not need to await Hoyte’s signature to the ERP to grasp its implications. In 1986, in Trinidad and Tobago, for the first time since independence, the People’s National Movement (PNM) was removed from government by the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR). The economy was in bad shape and the new government had to seek a structural adjustment programme from the international financial institutions (IFIs).
The programme called for privatisation of state enterprises; civil service reform – 10% reduction in public service salaries, implementation of a voluntary termination of employment programme, suspension of merit increases for public servants and suspension of cost of living allowances under the old-age pensioners programme; imposition of 15% VAT; continued removal of subsidies and transfers and devaluation of the Trinidad and Tobago dollar. In a span of only four years – 1988-1992 – the poverty level doubled from 16.6% to 35.8%. (Carolyne Woods – 1992 – “Issues in the Design of Microenterprise Development Programme:” Hampshire College MSC paper).
Among other things, the trade union movement in Trinidad and Tobago all but closed down the country by a day of resistance on March 6th 1989. At the end of it all, the NAR was forced to temper its austerity measures and the courts ordered the repayment of lost wages and cost of living allowances.
In Guyana, the ERP and the conditions which gave rise to it were to wreak havoc upon the conditions of the working people. According to the March 1997 Report of the Committee Appointed by the President [Cheddi Jagan] to Consider the Question of Wages and Salaries in the Public Service, “The plight of public servants can be attributed to the enormous real wage decline during the 1980’s. The decline between 1980 – 1990 was a massive fifty-three percent (53%) and by the end of 1990 this had reached seventy-five percent (75%), both relative to 1980. The decline was due principally to adverse economic circumstances in the eighties which the Economic Recovery Programme launched with the 1989 national budget sought to correct.”
This persistent erosion of the conditions of the working people inevitably gave rise to trade union radicalism. Throughout much of the PNC regime, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) was controlled by unions supportive of the regime, but in 1984, the year before President Burnham died, some independent trade unions, including the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), took control of the GTUC. To great rejoicing, the President of the GPSU, George Daniels, became the President of the GTUC. But this was only a temporary blip, the PNC regrouped and in 1985 regained control of the GTUC and did not lose it again during its time in government.
Nonetheless, union radicalism continued and in around 1988 the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), an alliance that comprised the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), the University of Guyana Workers Union (UGWU), Clerical and Commercial Workers Union (CCWU), the Guyana Mine Workers Union (GMWU), the Guyana Bauxite Supervisors Union (GBSU), the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) was formed with George Daniels as its Chairman.
Once FITUG was formed, the GPSU came in for treatment from the PNC not unlike what it is facing now. To the condemnation of all the FITUG affiliates, the government among other things discontinued deducting union dues and agency fees, claiming that the union records were not properly kept!
It was in this environment of rising trade union radicalism that Hoyte was busying himself constructing his ERP. FITUG requested discussions about the programme but to no avail and news emerged in early 1989 that the regime was about to sign the ERP. Following no doubt the Trinidad example, on the day after Mashramani of that year, FITUG called out its members on a day of protest which, with the exception of the private sector, was well supported, but matters were set to deteriorate.
Guymine de-recognised the bauxite unions and stopped deducting union dues and agency fees because of their participation in the day of protest. Both unions went on strike and FITUG threatened strike action. At about the same time, the 1989 national budget outlined some of the austerity measures agreed upon with the IFIs. This was worse than expected and thousands of workers from FITUG picketed parliament and the alliance called for a national strike to demand that the budget be withdrawn.
The bauxite unions, who were already on strike, were now joined by GAWU and the University of Guyana Workers Union. The strike all but shut down the bauxite and sugar industries and the university. The unions and political opposition held informative meetings throughout the country and the regime retaliated by sacking hundreds of workers in the state sector and charging many trade union activists and opposition party members with disorderly behaviour, etc. About this time, under pressure from the PNC but still to the surprise of many, George Daniels suddenly disappeared from Guyana!
Pressure on the GPSU to distance itself from the struggle intensified and six weeks into the strike, the union pulled out of FITUG. A week later, GAWU also called off its strike, stating that it did not have resources to continue. A few days later the bauxite unions gave up. UGWU also then gave up but had been the last union left standing. (Fr. Andrew Morrison SJ: “Justice – The Struggle For Democracy In Guyana;” Red Thread Women’s Press)
I am not concerned with who was on the right side of the dispute with the ERP: I simply want to indicate that, at various times, the bauxite, public service and university unions were in the forefront of the struggle against the PNC. Therefore, notwithstanding its withdrawal from FITUG in 1989, there was no good reason to consider the GPSU a perennially entrenched arm of that party as, for example, GAWU is in relation to the PPP.
Indeed, in my opinion, given that the membership of the GPSU dovetailed that of the PNC, the autocratic nature of the PNC regime and the fact that it was also the employer, the GPSU should have been commended for its militant stance; at least from those who supported the struggle.
It must be some twist of fate that the bauxite, public service and university communities are all now in confrontation with their erstwhile ally ensconced in government!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
