Dear Editor,
Below is ChatGPT’s summary of the issues in the ongoing strike between the GTU and the Ministry of Education in Guyana:
The ongoing strike between the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) and the Ministry of Education revolves around several key issues, primarily centered on salary negotiations and retroactive payments.
Salary Increases and Retroac-tive Payments: The GTU is demanding a 20% interim salary increase as part of a broader request for salary adjustments covering the period from 2019 to 2023. The union argues that these increases are necessary to address the financial needs of teachers and to ensure fair compensation for their work during this period. The Ministry of Education, however, has rejected this demand, citing financial constraints and the absence of budget allocations for these retroactive payments (Guyana Standard) (Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana).
Negotiation Deadlock: The Ministry of Education proposes starting fresh negotiations for a new multi-year agreement beginning in 2024, but the GTU insists on addressing the past period from 2019 to 2023 before moving forward. This disagreement has led to a stalemate, with the union walking out of negotiations on multiple occasions due to the Ministry’s refusal to consider retroactive salary adjustments (NCN Guyana).
Legal and Administrative Actions: The GTU has emphasized the need for a guarantee of no victimization or punitive actions against striking teachers, an interim payment to signal good faith in negotiations, and the recusal of the Labour Minister from the talks due to perceived bias. The union is also planning to intensify their strike with street protests to apply more pressure on the government (Guyana Standard) (News Room Guyana).
Impact on Education: The ongoing strike has disrupted the academic calendar, with the Ministry of Educa-tion canceling end-of-term examinations and opting for continuous assessment instead. This disruption underscores the significant impact of the strike on the education system and students’ learning out-comes (Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana).
Both sides remain entrenched in their positions, with the GTU focused on securing retroactive pay and the Ministry of Education advocating for future-oriented negotiations. The deadlock continues as the strike, now bolstered by planned protests, intensifies (NCN Guyana) (News Room Guyana).
SN reported yesterday that the GTU had also signalled a willingness to compromise on the two issues (the interim payment and the timeframe of the multi-year agreement). It was reported that the Minister of Education responded to this willingness-to-compromise signal by “criticizing the union for negotiating through the media rather than engaging directly with the ministry.” In essence, the Minister of Education is insisting that for her, the conflict between the MoE and the GTU is a zero-sum game in which one party’s gain comes only from concessions made and losses incurred by the other party. Of course, the Minister of Education could only envisage that zero-sum game as ending with the GTU, and the teachers they represent, as the losers.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. The willingness-to-compromise signal by the GTU could serve to make this conflict into a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, in which trust and good faith by both parties enhance the likelihood of cooperation. But the fact is that GTU doesn’t trust the MoE (as can be inferred from its insistence on an interim payment before negotiations begin); and the actions and statements emanating from the MoE have done nothing to rebuild that trust. Instead, the skeptical union and the teachers are being asked to bear all the risks associated with returning to the classrooms, with the strong possibility that their demands will forthwith be ignored, and that they might even be punished.
Surely the MoE (and the President) must know that good leadership (and good statecraft) places the burden of taking the initiative to build trust on the more powerful party in a conflict. By insisting instead that the union be the one to initiate the rebuilding of trust by first calling off the strike and returning to the classroom before the commencement of negotiations, the MoE is not only failing to provide leadership, but it is effectively saying “We don’t really care.”
Yours faithfully,
Thomas B. Singh
