On 27th February, the People’s Progressive Party, A Partnership for National Unity and the Alliance for Change without the permission of the Guyana Trades Union Congress divvied-up the latter’s property and processes. In its “wisdom”, parliament unilaterally decided to give its competitor FITUG (The Federation of Independent Trade Unions) equal representation with the GTUC and on the Board of the Critchlow Labour College, which belongs to the GTUC!
Mr. Basil Williams (MP: APNU), perhaps, unlike his colleagues, having learnt from the hash that was made of the local government process, made the wise suggestion that the issue be placed before a select committee where all interested parties could express their views but this was rejected. What accounted for this inexplicable behaviour? Apart from being an act of appeasement intended to encourage the regime to reinstate the funding it has unreasonably taken away from the college, the only substantive reason our representatives appear to have had for giving away other people’s property was a stated wish to build working class unity!
Not surprisingly then, once this decision reached the ears of the GTUC they were almost apoplectic. General Secretary Lincoln Lewis exclaimed: “For the PPP, this vote in the National Assembly is the cover needed to continue its discriminatory action. The opposition has sadly given their discriminatory act legitimacy. They were totally outmaneuvered by the government.”
But the political establishment was not to be undone: there was to be no contrition. On the contrary, it sought to bluster its way out of what was an atrocious approach and decision. Indeed, they were not prepared to meet and talk to the owners who had publicly trashed them; the GTUC was being unreasonable and possibly even anti-working class!
Let us not forget that the cricketing authority is attempting to place this body of reasonable persons before the courts because it is beyond them to reach an amicable compromise about the organisation of cricket in Guyana.
As for the goal of working class unity, what is usually sought after is not working class but trade union unity, and this cannot be straightforward in an ethnically divided society such as ours.
Historically, real working-class unity has been chimerical and might be found in the early history of the Guyana Labour Union (GLU). The GLU was registered by Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow in 1921 at about the peak of his popularity. In this early period it did make an effort and had some success in organizing both urban and rural workers. So much so that in 1924 some 4,000 sugar workers from the East Bank of Demerara, disgusted with the appalling conditions under which they had to work and live marched to Georgetown to consult with Critchlow. The leaders of the march were said to be members of the GLU and as the colonial authorities attempted to disperse the gathering, about a dozen of them were shot and killed. However, despite its efforts the GLU, was never really effective in the rural areas. In 1937, Ayube Edun, an Indian, formed the Manpower Citizens Association and PH Daly, maybe with some exaggeration, claimed that this “immediately split the solid phalanx of organised workers into two” (Co-operative Republic: 1970, Guyana).
Another example might be the short lived period between the late 1940s and early 1950s, which saw the rise of the PPP. But every general election in Guyana since 1957 has demonstrated that the African and Indian working classes believe themselves to have different political and thus economic interests.
As for trade union unity by way of the GTUC; for much of our independent history it has been accused of the manipulation of union strength and various other political machinations which has given rise to a degree of rancour that is unhelpful to a process of ethnic reconciliation. This notwithstanding that trade union unity is not critical for the development for the working class or Guyana.
It appears to me that, instead of the continuous bickering about the lack of unity, what is required is institutional consolidation and functional cooperation in possible and required areas, among individual and national trade unions.
Belgium, which is an ethnically divided but developed country, provides a good example of this and also of the ideological stance trade unions can still take in this era of liberalist capitalist ideological hegemony.
Trade unions in Belgium are organised on a religious/ideological basis and the country has three national confederations and one of the highest trade union affiliations in the world with about 54% of workers in the private sector belonging to trade unions. The manner in which the federations cut across industrial boundaries may even have contributed to real working class cooperation and unity.
The oldest is the General Federation of Belgian Labour, which was founded in 1898, has a membership of 1,124,072 and is a socialist trade union with a strategy aimed at acquiring through reforms a socialist planned economy with workers’ self-management. The largest is the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (ACV-CSC) founded in 1904, which brings together some 17 unions with a membership of about 1,388,586. It claims to be in favour of workers’ self-management in a controlled and socialized market economy. The smallest is the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions founded shortly before the turn of the 20th century, which now has a membership of about 213,083 and is committed to the development of a liberal free-market economy.
Belgium also has one of the most elaborate systems of social dialogue. “Every two years, the social partners try to reach an intertrade agreement. In this agreement, measures about ‘social progress’ (wages, employment, training) are taken for active and non-active workers. The intertrade agreement is valid for the country’s entire private sector. A system of control mechanisms and inspection, including labour courts, enables the effective implementation of agreements and regulatory systems” (“Trade unions in Belgium,” http://eng.acv-online.be/Belgium).
John Maynard Keynes once claimed that many practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist or political philosopher. Nowhere is this truer than in the persistent lament of our political establishment (which is rooted in our British trade union heritage coupled with decades of socialist political socialisation) about the need for trade union/working class unity in Guyana.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
