Dear Editor,
Two letters in SN on June 18 on a particular matter caught my attention.
The first letter was in the name of E.B. John in which he briefly discussed the meeting between the President and the top management of GuySuCo. In his letter, Mr. John offers the following advice to GuySuCo’s management team; ‘An organisation requires collective thinking and action. In the latter regard older managers may be reminded of the ‘Worker Participation’ model.
The second letter was from Mr. Sherwood Clarke, General President of the Clerical and Commercial Workers’ Union (CCWU). In his letter Mr. Clarke states; ‘A development strategy should be designed to put the workers eventually in control of economic power within the Private Sector. Workers must cease being passive wage-earners, mere tools of production within the economy, and become involved in enterprises as managers, owners, and decision-makers.’
To my understanding, workers’ participation in decision-making is applicable to public and some private sector enterprises. It envisages: supervision by workers, proper accounting, effective distribution of workers in the production and distribution of goods, overseeing the performance of workers, elimination of wasteful efforts, reduction of costs as well as the efficient management of the enterprise.
Writing in his book ‘Worker Participation In Company Profits Or Operating Results in Latin America,’ Andres Marinakis points out;
‘Systems of worker participation in the operating results call for the direct involvement of the workers themselves and of the trade unions in various aspects of the process (from identification of the strategic variables to follow-up of their application). The essential need for dialogue between the parties and transparency of the process make these programmes a valuable means of establishing more participative human resources policies and less conflictive labour relations, which are much more in keeping with the need to improve company competitiveness.’
Whether this model can be pursued at GuySuCo following its top management meeting with the President and bearing in mind what remains as regards the corporation’s Human Resources and its infrastructure, is left to be seen.
In the meanwhile, the President of GAWU has already expressed his union’s doubts about the management’s ability to turn the corporation around so long as the current CEO remains in place. As far as the Union is concerned, a turnaround of the industry is possible but not with the current CEO. Moreover, from all indications, the manual on workers’ participation at GuySuCo is certainly not in the sitting CEO’s back pocket.
GuySuCo’s housekeeping matters aside, care should be taken when assessing success or no success in respect to the model of participation and control lest we succumb to the false notion that the model of participation and control failed when in fact, it was never really tried in Guyana and thus the question why go back to a model that failed?
Truth be told, Guyana’s past experiences on the subject of workers’ participation and control proved unworthy, but that was because there was no genuine effort by the Burnham administration to put even the slightest modicum of the concept in place either at the Bauxite or sugar industries.
In effect, both bauxite and sugar workers were betrayed by the Burnham administration. After all, the workers had been promised that with nationalization of the sugar and bauxite industries, the government would pursue a policy of workers participation and control.
However, contrary to its declared pro-working class policy, the much touted worker participation and control of the nationalized sugar and bauxite industries never materialized, instead a parasitic, bureaucratic elite emerged at the management level at both industries. They eventually became masters of the nationalized companies.
The non-implementation of what was promised resulted in great discontent amongst the bauxite workers, that discontent, coupled with fraudulent union election led to a general strike in the bauxite industry in December 1976.
In 1977, a 13-week strike by sugar workers virtually crippled the sugar industry. A poll was conducted ending in GAWU being recognized at the Union representing sugar workers nationwide.
Since workers in bauxite and sugar realized that government’s promise for their participation and control was but an empty one, they opted to use the only weapon they had at their disposal to achieve their legitimate objectives.
The struggles of bauxite and sugar workers continue to this day though under much different conditions especially where the oil and gas industries pose an existential threat to the longevity of these two once upon a time thriving industries whose nationalization under a pretentious working class government, and whose productive output brought so much joy and happiness to many Guyanese.
The advice offered by Messrs John and Clarke is neither irrelevant nor outdated, they remain as valid and efficacious as they were in a hitherto era.
The big question is, is the Board and management at GuySuCo bold and courageous enough not to continue carrying on as if it is business as usual.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
