Dear Editor,
Response is being made to the letter dated 10th June 2019, captioned `I agree that the General Secretary is a one-man show at the GTUC,’ which was signed by Eon Andrews in his capacity as Vice President of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC). I hope he does not feel discriminated against by this late response or he was not getting the due attention he sought when he entered this discussion at the behest of Freddie Kissoon’s demand. In his satellite role he has added to the potpourri of public mischief and distortion. On 2nd June Kissoon wrote the, `UG unions have a moral obligation to debunk Lewis’s statement on my involvement’ and stated “Eon Andrews, Vice-President of the TUC, contacted me with a promise to expose Lewis.” His so-called exposure is hereunder attended to-
“The General Secretary is a one-man show at the GTUC”
As General Secretary I am the day-to-day manager of the GTUC, the Chief Executive Officer. Vested in that position is the right and understanding that I speak for and on behalf of the GTUC. On issues of major national import or policy changes the consensus of the GTUC’s executive is duly sought. Outside of giving voice on behalf of the GTUC, I also write in my private capacity on any issue that I see fit to so do.
The question is being posed to Andrews, who authorised him in the capacity as GTUC Vice President to pen a letter to the media. They are only three principal officers of the GTUC- the President, General Secretary and Treasurer. Anybody else who speaks on behalf of the organisation requires authorisation to so do.
GTUC/CLC one-man show
Andrews states, “I agree with Freddie that the General Secretary is a one-man show at the GTUC and the Critchlow Labour College (CLC).” It is obvious while he holds a position in the organisation he does not understand the organisation with which he associates.
The GTUC has an elected executive that gathers monthly, for special meetings, and at a triennial Congress. Outside of those meetings the responsibility is that of the President and the General Secretary with the latter engaged in day-to-day management. GTUC has always had a very active, vocal and prominently visible General Secretary. Our Presidents are generally no less. And where they are not, one may see this as a function of the individual’s personality or preference.
It is important that the GTUC as a social partner maintains a prominent presence in society with the ability to engage directly or indirectly to influence and shape decisions on matters that affect labour at any level. Labour being an important factor of production, this representation is not limited to the employed /self-employed or unorganised labour force but the potential and even retired labour force. The executive body has scheduled monthly meetings and gathers ever so often for special meetings. Many of these special meetings include FITUG
Relationship with FITUG
FITUG is an umbrella body representing unions that were previously part of the GTUC. As labour organisations we have common interests and a workers’ mandate to protect these interests. We both operate in a political environment that seeks to shape how we function and we both respond in ways that serve our best interest.
The GTUC is aligned to no political party, no government or regime. In or out of power. Respective individuals and unions may so do. Ours have been the practice to work with all who are strategic to our interest, guided by the philosophy of “permanent interest not permanent friends,” for over the years we have recognised that those in and out of power find us convenient when in Opposition and an inconvenience when in Government. GTUC’s interest remains constant regardless of who is in power.
On matters of national import e.g., GuySuCo, BCGI, the GTUC and FITUG meet in solidarity to share and understand. Sometimes monthly meetings are rescheduled based on the numbers of special meetings held during said period and matters ventilated. Outside of that GTUC is not without its internal and external struggles, as like any other mass-based organisation.
Decision on who becomes GTUC President
I have no doubt that as General Secretary, with a longstanding history, as a seasoned trade unionist, quite familiar with all the union representatives, my opinion and views can influence others. I would be a failure if this were not so. However, the recklessness of Andrews to cast aspersions on the GTUC’s process and integrity in order to acquiesce to the demands of Kissoon that he writes in support of demonstrates serious wickedness and oversight. The fact is, the President is voted for by delegates of the various unions in an open process. Evidently every officer, delegate/individual has his/her preferences. Any preference of mine or anyone else does not translate to automatic election.
Former employees/individuals associated with the CLC
The CLC has parted ways with employees and associates for various reasons, including running unauthorised programmes, using the staff to execute personal contracts during their official working times, unauthorised renting of the facility for their personal gain, poor performance and failure to conclude contractual requirements. CLC is managed by a Board of Directors and is the property of the GTUC. When and where necessary we change the locks to ensure safety of the property in instances where aggrieved employees or associates are no longer entitled to enjoy the privileges or access to the areas of restriction.
In the case of Colonel Godwin McPherson, his employment as well as his departure was consistent with the interest of the CLC. The bloodline of the Lewis /McPherson clan is very strong but we can divide on principles if or when necessary. The principles that applied to all others were not compromised for Colonel McPherson or any other ‘name-branded person.’
Severance pay and outstanding sums owed to former employees
All separations were done consistent with the Labour laws.
Subvention/Grants
GTUC and CLC suffered the withdrawal of the subvention under the PPP in a vindictive manoeuvre. Both entities survived nevertheless. The Coalition Government returned same at a far lesser rate which I made public. Each of these actions serves as lessons as to how successive governments are prepared to treat with the independence of the GTUC and influence our compliance and role in demanding social justice and an industrial environment conducive to worker’s development and rights. This should not be a point of gloating or be used as an indictment by someone who claims to be a trade unionist.
The vital role and services provided by CLC to offer workers and citizens an education, a second chance, certification to enter the workforce and pursue higher learning, should not be the target of governmental vindictiveness. The response to these actions were addressed ad nauseam and can be googled by those with an interest on the factors surrounding these.
Media statements on matters of national import
GTUC’s present position on sugar, which include the management of the industry and treatment of workers and their unions, started since the closure of Diamond Estate during the Bharrat Jagdeo/PPP administration. GTUC’s interest and position on GuySuCo has not changed with the change in government. This position was publicly articulated. What Andrews wants now is a change in position based on partisan politics. GTUC stands firm on the principles that decision affecting GuySuCo must respect the rights and welfare of the workers, who are represented by their unions.
UMU Collective Labour agreement
The constitution of GTUC clearly stipulates that affiliates should have a Collective Labour Agreement (CLA). Andrews is fully aware of this and has been asked time and time again to provide a CLA. He has failed to do so even as he continues to enjoy the privileges of membership, and is now displaying disgruntlement, comparing his relationship with that of other unions with long term established bona fides, whose CLA have lapsed and can easily be renewed. Any reference to the absence of this is only made to represent the fact that yours truly did offer relevant trade union advice.
Andrews states, that I am either unaware or conveniently ignoring, “that, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), recognizing… self-employed workers has added to its Constitution ‘Recommendation 202’ to accommodate, capture and retain these types of workers.” This statement is not even relevant to the extant discussion or any matter pertinent to the UMU and its relationship with GTUC. However, Andrews notably uses this to suggest the GTUC (moreso Lincoln Lewis) is in violation of the rights of the UMU. For the benefit of him and readers, the ILO recommendation he speaks of has to do with “Recognition of Social Security as a human Right. ” It has nothing to do with trade union recognition which is outside the purview of the ILO.
Andrews is advised to become more familiar with issues that he speaks about.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
