Dear Editor,
It was interesting to observe the TV news clipping wherein a representative of the Women Miners Association commented on the impact of the strike by employees of GGMC for better pay on the mining industry. Curiously the male version of the miners’ representation manfully recanted any such measurable impact. He since reportedly said that it was too early to tell.
But his counterpart was not so conservative, particularly in her support of the strikers and their objectives. She expressed appreciation of the male presence amongst the many female placard-holders. In her harangue she alluded to her sense of discrimination by the governing officials in the ministry in their reluctance to settle the dispute with the GPSU, when in similar circumstances in the sugar industry, GAWU’s membership was given a more positive response not so long ago.
From an attentive viewer’s viewpoint the comparison afforded an interesting connection of dots. The Industrial Relations Officer of the GPSU was earlier recorded as noting the indifference of the ministry (as distinct from the commission) which wanted to break the protest.
If this perception is to be believed, it is in fact a curious construct whereby the union sees the legally empowered employer – The commission and board – as not being the relevant decision-maker responsible for the current impasse. Forgivably, one is reminded of the relative emasculation of the various board memberships of GuySuCo over the years, whose position on management policies has scarcely, if ever, been articulated.
In this connecting of dots it may not be inappropriate for stakeholders to refer to aspects of the legislation which established the semi-autonomous agency described as The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission. Therein a distinction is made between the powers of the commission (er) and that of the minister. It is within such context that the present imbroglio deserves to be examined.
The point was clearly implied that a cash-strapped GuySuCo was facilitated with one or more subventions to meet commitments like pay increases and incentives to sugar workers; while a fully self-financed GGMC (who may have initially subsidised the ministry startup) is not allowed to exercise its autonomy to pay, not only its long-service employees, but also the scores of new recruits absorbed since the recent ministerial dispensation.
The irony of all this lies in the conundrum that all employees, except the commissioner, are bonafide members of the operative union – GPSU. So that the chord struck is one of organizational schizophrenia, where levels of management staff are crossing swords with their seniors who are reported to be without a mandate to make conclusive negotiable decisions. Their interests also are being emasculated by other ethereal decision-making – all, according to the Women Miners Association, hinting of socio-cultural considerations.
It is not as if however the pristine management have any other to blame but themselves. The proposals for salary increases and adjustments emerged out of recommendations made by a consultancy report since 2009. They must therefore accept responsibility for a delay which must be shared by the union. In a sense therefore both parties are culpable and have visited this travesty on themselves. It is one also that the Ministry of Labour must display more than its normal mundanity to resolve.
As a matter of interest extracts from Cap. 65:09 Guyana Geology and Mines Commission follow:
“4. (3) The Commission shall be responsible for –
(a) The enforcement of the conditions of mining and dredging leases, concessions, or exclusive permissions, or any licence, permit, or mineral agreement granted, or entered into, or deemed to be granted or entered into, under the Mining Act;
(b) The collection and recovery of all rents, fees, royalties, penalties, levies, tolls and charges payable under the Mining Act and any other revenues of the Commission:
(c) Hall marking
“Provided that the Commission may, in relation to the collection and recovery of royalties payable in respect of gold under the Mining Act, by writing and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Guyana Gold Board and the Commission, appoint the Guyana Gold Board to be its agent for the collection and recovery of such royalties.”
And
“5. (1) The Commission may employ at such remuneration and on such other terms and conditions it thinks fit (including the payment of pensions, gratuities or other like benefits by reference to the service of its officers and other employees) a Commissioner, a Secretary and such other officers and other employees as the Commission considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out its functions:
(2) The Commissioner shall be the chief executive officer of the Commission and, subject to any general or special directions of the Commission, shall be responsible for the execution of the policy of the Commission and answerable therefor to the Commission.”
Yours faithfully
E B John
