Dear Editor,
The present impasse between the Government of Guyana (GoG) and the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) reflects an absence of critical and progressive thinking. What is also being seen on the GoG’s part is horse trading.
The outcome of any negotiation that is considered just is one where the results are agreed upon by the parties involved. The GPSU rejected the wage/salary offer. For the government to state that the position put forward to the union is final, and it will go ahead and implement it even if the union has not accepted same, is a breach of trust and can be described as evidence of bad faith negotiations.
Industrial relations are not about gut feelings. They are guided by a body of knowledge grounded in conventions, time-honoured principles, established rules and laws. Representatives of this government are advised of the importance of arming themselves with an understanding of these tenets or they will continue lurching from one crisis to another on matters pertaining to workers’ welfare. There are precedents in this society which can serve as guides as against the present big stick method being pursued.
In the 1964 national elections, both the People’s National Congress (PNC) and United Force (UF) in their manifestoes promised wage/salary increases to public servants. In the first budget of the coalition (PNC-UF) government, Peter D’Aguiar who was Finance Minister announced a 24 per cent wage/salary increase for public servants.
In taking the decision D’Aguiar said, “The increases in rates of pay have been necessary to restore and improve morale in the civil service. It is now hoped to reduce the flow of resignations and to attract suitable staff to the service at all levels.” The minimum wage was raised from $3.04 to $4.00 per day, which represented a 76 per cent increase.
The parties that form this government campaigned on a promise to pay public servants decent wages/salaries. Rather than address workers’ wages/salaries and conditions of work, the government, ie, the President, ministers and members of parliament, moved to look at their own first. This act is unpardonable in this society. For the government to believe that their decision will be easily forgotten, much more has to be done at the bargaining table for workers not to believe that the increases paid to the cabinet and MPs were not self-serving.
In 1979 the Forbes Burnham government announced a wage freeze. Bauxite workers challenged this decision in the streets and were able to get a wages/salaries increase through the Performance Appraisal System. In 1980, having learnt from 1979, when the GoG and Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) met to negotiate, a number of issues, inclusive of salary increases were agreed upon. The government, conscious of its inability to pay, involved the State Planning Secretariat in the person of Carl Greenidge who was mandated to find possible ways to meet the commitment given to the union. It was during this negotiation that the issue of deferred wages/salaries in the forms of bonds was proposed to the GTU. This was accepted by the union and the parties signed off on an agreement.
In 1999 the Janet Jagan government decided that it will respond negatively to the public sector unions’ demand for an increase in wages/salaries, on the pretext that the IMF Structural Adjustment Programme prevented offering a decent increase. The government felt the trade union was weak, but underestimated the workers who were enraged by the treatment, mobilised among themselves, and proceeded to strike action. The union leadership had to comply.
The 1999 strike lasted for 57 days and the parties had to resort to arbitration to have the matter resolved. When the award was made, the IMF was notified and the government had to honour the increase. Though the award was not honoured in its entirety, the increased wages/salaries for the three years the award stipulated were paid.
One would have expected that these experiences would serve as lessons to guide negotiations with the GoG and the GPSU ‒ and the GTU. Actors of the events of 1979 and 1980 such as Carl Greenidge, Jeffrey Thomas and Richard Persico are still around, and their knowledge and experience could be tapped. The 1999 issue is still fresh and most of the persons who participated in it are still around.
Negotiation requires constructive engagement, built on mutual respect, which would guide arriving at a package agreed on by the employer and workers’ representatives. This government has failed in upholding these basic principles, and is urged to learn and be guided by the lesson of history, and return to the negotiation table.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
