Dear Editor,
There continues to be condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of GuySuCo management’s stubbornness to not engage in collective bargaining with the sugar unions inasmuch as the minister who holds the national purse requested that such be done. One must wonder if this attitude is driven by some desire for political collateral, thereby allowing for the workers’ right to be trampled, with the intent of embarrassing the government. The present situation is fostering a hostile industrial relations environment between the workers and management and, by extension, the government.
Collective bargaining is not an activity to be conducted by the GuySuCo Board which has the responsibility for policy direction. It is the Chief Executive Officer and management team, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the organisation, that are tasked with the responsibility to engage in collective bargaining with the unions.
It is not being said the coalition government has done a stellar job in handling the sugar industry. But Mr Jagdeo, as Leader of the Opposition and political representative who benefited from these workers’ votes, has failed to put any proposal in front of the government and country, with a view of addressing the industry’s stability, and the survival of the workers and their communities. We do not have to go far to see that this could have been done.
Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte fought for the bauxite workers, many of whom were supporters of his party, when he felt their well-being was under threat. In the 2001 Agreement he signed with President Bharrat Jagdeo, an area for attention was the depressed communities. This included the bauxite company and the communities within which those workers lived. Out of this, a Technical Committee was established to deal with the bauxite communities. That committee worked and submitted its report, but Jagdeo ignored the submissions.
Mr Robert Corbin, who succeeded Hoyte as PNC Leader and Leader of the Opposition, continued to push what Hoyte started, evident in the 2003 communiqué he signed with Jagdeo which included addressing issues pertinent to labour (workers). And whereas Jagdeo never honoured those commitments, history has recorded that the named leaders of the opposition gave serious representation for their constituents and society by extracting agreements from the Executive. In this regard, they cannot be accused for not trying to deliver to those supporters.
If Jagdeo, as Leader of the Opposition, had sat down with the sugar unions and mapped out a programme and strategy to put to the coalition to address the industry’s deficiencies, there could have been improvement in the direction he claims to now be promising. If he had failed to see implementation of any of these, as he did with Hoyte and Corbin, the public would have recognised and hailed his effort in seeking representation for the welfare of his constituents and the good of society.
Dr Cheddie Jagan, his predecessor, had measured success in this regard. Even when the young sugar canes were being burnt in the fields and in the presence of industrial actions, Jagan slugged away with a strategy and programme for the industry and his constituents and was able to extract benefits from the PNC government.
Every citizen following the developments in sugar by now knows then President Jagdeo’s programme of injecting over US$200 million in the modernisation of the Skelton Estate was a disaster. We the taxpayers are today saddled with the debt of repaying the loan for a project that never worked. GuySuCo continues to be a political football. The time has come to address this issue since any call for financing has to come from the national coffer (Consolidated Fund) and requires a studied and focused response by national political leaders, technicians, the sugar unions and other stakeholders.
Jagdeo must be held accountable for his management of the industry as president and his refusal to meaningfully advance the sugar workers’ welfare as Leader of the Opposition. For this record, any acceptance today from him that he cares about the industry, the workers and communities and have a plan for them should the PPP be returned to government, we must ask him why the party under his leadership didn’t pursue same in government and opposition.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
