Dear Editor,
The much anticipated report from the Commission of Inquiry into the sugar industry has been submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and was due to be tabled at a Cabinet meeting this week. There is talk of divestment and privatisation. At the same time, GAWU has held a three- day strike to protest the delay of the normal practice of discussing wage increases and fringe benefits.
It is well known that the local cost of production has spiralled as the price of sugar on the world market has fallen.
It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to conclude that neither wage increases nor ‘fringe benefits’ are likely to be in prospect so we must assume that GAWU is standing firm on its rights (in accordance with legal provisions) rather than anticipating an actual increase in wages. The fact that the union chose this moment to do so suggests an overwhelming lack of trust between workers and management, in itself a likely reason for the decline in productivity.
About 18 months ago, Professor Thomas observed in another section of this newspaper that “GuySuCo’s centralised management structure means that, as its scale of operations increase, every worker conflict or dispute, no matter how local is its origin, has the potential for spreading throughout the entire industry. Furthermore, the industry’s centralised trade union structure reinforces these risks of spreading local disputes industry-wide.” It is likely that the report will produce evidence as well that a centralised management structure does not permit localised problems or opportunities to be addressed as effectively as they might be.
It’s unlikely that all of the sugar estates or factories will, in their present condition, represent an attractive prospect for purchasers, unless they are sold at a reduced rate as ‘damaged goods’. Previous administrations have not tended to demonstrate the capacity to secure good value for the sale of state assets. There is therefore a strong argument to be made that those involved directly in the industry should be given the chance to acquire ownership of one or a group of estates.
With this in mind, I’d like to draw attention to a radically different management and ownership model as exemplified by the largest department store retailer in the UK, the John Lewis Partnership. The comparison is not inappropriate. The Partnership’s portfolio includes 32 department stores, over 300 supermarkets, an online and catalogue business and a farm. It employs over 80,000 staff and the business has annual gross sales of over £10 billion.
The Partnership took shape about a hundred years ago. It came about because John Spedan Lewis realised that poor performance in a flagship store, ‘Peter Jones’, was largely because workers had little incentive to perform; their interests were not in line with those of the business. He began by shortening the working day, introducing a commission system for each department and holding regular meetings at which staff could air any grievances directly with him. He came to the conclusion that just as shareholders receive a reward for their capital, stakeholders should be also be entitled to share in profits from the business.
Every employee is a Partner in the John Lewis Partnership, and has an opportunity to influence the business through branch forums (which discuss local issues at every store). Partners share in the benefits and profits of the business: all staff receive the same percentage payout for their annual bonus, which rises or falls in line with the company’s financial performance. In an echo of the sugar estates (though with more equitable access to all facilities), perks and benefits for employees include access to and use of two large country estates, three country hotels and a golf club and sailing club. The Partners’ rights are enshrined in a Constitution, revised and updated as necessary.
The plantation system of cultivation is principally (and historically) associated with outmoded types of top-down management structures, exploitation of or poor relations with labour and a preoccupation with the extraction (as opposed to the redistribution) of profit. There is no reason why this should continue to be the case. We have the opportunity to chart another path for sugar. Could we not take this opportunity to craft a shareholder/stakeholder enterprise for some estates? If our local banks were willing to capitalise the transition and local businesses were to lend their support and expertise to the project, there is no reason why sugar and its derivatives should not continue to reward those involved in its production.
There is an interesting footnote to the John Lewis story. Wikipedia reports that in 1999, in response to a fall in profits, there were calls from some Partners for the business to be demutualised and floated on the stock market. Each Partner would have received a windfall averaging £100,000 each. In the end, no one on the Partnership Council agreed with the idea.
Yours faithfully,
Isabelle de Caires
