Dear Editor,
The GAWU has taken note of expressions of GuySuCo and its Chief Executive Officer, which appeared in several sections of the media in response to the calls by the workers of Uitvlugt Estate regarding their right holiday-with-pay (HWP) entitlements. The sugar company’s CEO is quoted as saying the workers actions were “…anti-national and anti-patriotic…” We find such labels unfortunate and seemingly aimed at disparaging the workers and the Union.
In reflecting on the CEO’s utterances, we had to wonder whether it reflects his mindset regarding workers defence of their rights and conditions. Workers’ struggles through our history has brought us steady advancements and several victories. Not too long ago we hailed the significant contribution of the Enmore Martyrs, who are now deemed National Heroes. Were those struggles by workers in defence of their rights conditions also “anti-national and anti-patriotic”? Could it be that the old, bygone, and tattered colonial philosophy has now returned to the sugar industry? We certainly hope not but we are certain that, as in the past, such intrigues will not succeed.
While the CEO chooses to deem the workers actions as “anti-national and anti-patriotic”, how do such statements contrast with the performance of the current Executive Management team? During their sojourn, thus far, production has fallen to previously unheard levels. Field productivity is declining. And employee disenchantment is growing. Of course, such ‘feats’ comes when the industry is receiving significant Government support. As President Irfaan Ali said a few weeks ago, his government is serious about sugar and is committed to the industry and its resuscitation. We ask: Is the current Executive Management similarly committed? If such commitment is lacking, as the evidence seems to outline, isn’t that really “anti-national and anti-patriotic” behaviour?
The workers actions were reported to have placed the sugar company “…in clear danger…” However, we wonder if there was no danger when the ‘sugar experts’ decided to pursue repairs to the factory gear when a replacement was required? Or was the company not placed “in clear danger” when immature second crop canes were harvested during the first crop to make up deficits? Or isn’t the company placed “in clear danger” when decisions were taken to abandon large hectarages of cane cultivation? How is it when workers stand-up for their rights the company is suddenly in danger, but when the Executive Management takes inimical decisions there is no danger? It is an obvious double-standard and is a continuation of the efforts to denigrate the workers.
GuySuCo claimed in sections of the media, that “…for HWP to be facilitated, a factor will have to be established which requires at least one (1) week of grinding.” This was said to have been communicated to the workers. Yet at a meeting on April 22, 2022, the Estate Management informed the Union and the workers that “[a] factor was calculated for Field and Factory workers which worked out to 0.69444 and 3.125 respectively.” Clearly, GuySuCo, in our view, is not being truthful. Nonetheless, the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) with the Corporation does not in any way indicate that the ‘factor’ is required before the HWP entitlement can be settled. This has been drawn to the Corporation’s attention umpteen times. Yet despite our efforts to bring respect to the agreement, the Corporation continues to ignore our valid concern.
The invocation of the factor is merely ‘red herring’ which, in our view, is a poor attempt to distort the truth and deny the workers their entitlements. GAWU remains committed to the sugar industry and its success. We believe the current Executive Management of GuySuCo requires serious evaluation and shortcomings addressed. Nonetheless, we remain firm that workers’ rights and conditions must be respected, and the Corporation must also promote cooperation and not confrontation.
Sincerely,
Seepaul Narine
President
GAWU
