Dear Editor,
GAWU has issued in SN of 31-12-2022 a most instructive commentary on the production performance of GuySuCo for this year, reflecting achievements of 72.45% of a total target of 64,889 tonnes of sugar – as follows: Albion/PM Estate – 83.44%, Blairmont Estate – 74.51% and Uitvlugt – 44.49%. The Union expressed objection to workers being blamed for the disappointing performance, giving the impression that mainly ‘field’ employees were responsible.’
In the meantime, it seems to have been overlooked that Uitvlugt Estate suffered from factory production being affected by having to await substantial repairs with resulted in cane farmers losing canes. The latter were among recipients of grants distributed to unemployed estate employees. But what must be of some concern is the non-reference to supervisory and managerial employees’ performance as if the long established Performance Appraisal System has been abandoned, with improvisation, if any, improvisation, if any, for supervision, if any, for training and development action, moreso in the face of substantive replacement by newcomers of well experienced personnel in almost every department.
Transfers are therefore more often than not of mediocrity resulting from depleted teamsmanship, and consequently low morale. There are hardly any exemplars of inspiration within the organisation, and barely any invitation to career aspirants – certainly not in the area of agriculture now divisibly contracted out, rather than investment in the Guyana School of Agriculture and/or the University of Guyana. It is therefore difficult to interpret whether the Board has, in the light of GAWU’s justified anxiety, insisted on the creation of an imaginative Human Resources Development strategy that must take into account unexpected departures – in an increasingly competitive employment market, for GuySuCo appears hardly to be an employer of first choice.
In the process, those who know of the history of sugar must wonder what informed the decision to replace trained agriculturists with contracted ‘cane farmers’, albeit without recognition of the National Cane Farming Committee Act! But the latter apart, one could not help but note the omission of any reference to man-days lost due to strikes. And of course, an effective Health and Safety Programme cannot be overlooked. In the final analysis, it would be most useful to be informed of the structure of this somewhat confused organisation. For example, to whom are ‘contractors’ accountable?
Sincerely,
E. B. John
