The Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) seems to be on the verge of accepting a multi-year salary increase proposal from the government, which would give teachers a 10% pay hike for 2024 and raises over the next two years not lower than what other public sector workers receive, sources have said.
“The offer was not accepted as yet, because there are still some discussions… The government’s proposal … for the multi-year agreement [was] three years at different rates, with a clause that if other public servants are given a higher rate than in the agreement for the given years, then GTU’s will also be upped to that…,” a source close to the negotiations told the Stabroek News yesterday.
The 10% on the table comes after 9% was proposed after the GTU rejected a 7% proposed pay hike.
One source said that the government offered 10% for the first year, 2024, and 9% for 2025 and 8 % for 2026.
Stabroek News reached out to both the GTU and the government for an official response on the issue but this was futile.
Up to late yesterday, this newspaper understands, the GTU was still having discussions with its members.
On Saturday morning, teachers from the various councils received a message from GTU President Mark Lyte, one source informed.
“Colleagues, good morning. General Council met yesterday and made a decision to accept MoE’s revised offer of 10,8, 9 % for the three-year period with the caveat that should public servants get more than our offer, the difference will be given to teachers. These direct financial benefits will be added to other indirect financial ones outlined in the other areas of the agreement,” the message was said to have read.
“The union wishes to have some of these benefits rolled out in the month of September. Hence, an early date of signing would be beneficial to our members. Towards this end, GC was asked to engage our members by region, branch, small group, etc, so as to update members. These engagements are expected to unfold today and tomorrow so that on Monday, we can sign the agreement. Four officers (President, 1st and 2nd VP’s, and GS) will attend the signing session at 09:00 hrs on Monday at MoE’s Boardroom.
“We are aware that what is agreed was not what was requested. However, our teachers deserve to be compensated in every avenue possible during these difficult times. I have also pushed for dues to be remitted to GTU on or before September in keeping with court ruling. Please inform me where sessions with members are held today and tomorrow. Thank you,” the message reportedly read
News of the acceptance was met with outrage by teachers with some taking to social media to voice their disquiet.
In an open letter to the GTU, member Melicia Murray penned: “I am writing to express my deep concern and dissatisfaction with the recent developments surrounding the salary negotiations and the subsequent approval of a 10% increase after 75 days of dedicated strike action. As a committed member of the teaching community, I find this outcome not only disappointing but also a significant blow to the morale and financial well-being of all educators who have tirelessly advocated for fair compensation.”
“**The Struggles We Faced** For 75 days, we stood united in our fight for better wages, improved working conditions, and the recognition we rightfully deserve as educators. We made significant sacrifices—both personal and professional—believing that our collective action would lead to a meaningful and substantial improvement in our compensation. Our determination was driven by the belief that our voices would be heard and that our efforts would not be in vain. The 10% Increase: A Slap in the Face**,” it added.
The writer said: “To be greeted with a mere 10% salary increase after such a prolonged and committed strike is, frankly, unacceptable. This percentage does not reflect the reality of our financial struggles, the inflationary pressures we face, or the true value of the work we do. In a nation blessed with abundant natural resources, particularly in the oil sector, it is inconceivable that the fruits of our labour should be met with such minimal recognition.”
Calling for clarity and transparency, Murray wrote: “What is most troubling, however, is the lack of transparency and communication regarding how this 10% increase was determined and approved. As educators, we emphasize the importance of knowledge and understanding, and it is only fair that we are provided with a clear and comprehensive breakdown of the package that was accepted by the General Council representatives and, by extension, the Guyana Teachers’ Union.”
Advocating that teachers deserved to at least be told the rationale behind accepting whatever offer is given, a list of questions was posed to the union: “1. What criteria were used to determine the 10% increase? 2. How does this increase compare to the initial demands made by the union? 3. What other benefits, if any, are included in this package, and how do they contribute to our overall compensation? 4. Were alternative options considered, and if so, why were they rejected? 5. What is the long-term plan to address the financial concerns of educators in light of this decision?”
In late July, the government had proposed a 7% increase and this was rejected by the GTU.
Then negotiations had involved two bilateral meetings, which Lyte had described as having been conducted transparently and with significant progress. He noted that the process followed the 74-day strike, and that speculation and misinformation on social media have exacerbated member anxieties.
Lyte outlined that the GTU had submitted proposals covering 14 broad areas of discussion. By the end of the first meeting, eight of these areas had been addressed, reducing the number under negotiation from 14 to 6. He explained that the Ministry of Education was responsible for presenting counter-proposals on each item. These counters either align with, exceed, or fall short of the union’s initial demands.
According to Lyte, the ongoing talks aimed to find common ground between both parties. Although some agreements have been reached, the union had not yet accepted all proposals and had requested further clarity and potential revisions from the ministry.
Lyte had urged GTU members to be cautious of unverified information and to understand that the negotiation process was complex and ongoing. Both the GTU and the MOE have agreed to issue joint statements once a resolution is reached, and to refrain from disclosing specific details prematurely.
