Dear Editor,

THE Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) has taken note of Mr Abel Seetaram’s letter titled “PPP & GAWU destroyed sugar,” that appeared in the July 13, 2017 Guyana Chronicle. Our union believes, as a responsible organisation, that we need to respond to this letter under Mr Seetaram’s name and who persistently blows hot air in the letter columns. We have repeatedly stated that this propaganda-styled letter, similar to those earlier sent by Seetaram, seems to be authored by a person who is obviously upset by our union’s outspoken and just stance on the diabolical plans for sugar.

Mr Seetaram, in his latest diatribe, charged that our union was sleeping between 1992 and May, 2015. Clearly, Mr Seetaram is not acquainted with the GAWU’s work and indeed, it seems that it is Mr Seetaram who was asleep and clearly is still asleep. In that period, like all previous years, the GAWU continued to champion the cause of and articulated the concerns of workers in the sugar industry. Through our representation, workers’ rights and benefits steadily improved and they and their families have been enjoying a better quality of life. However, those years of improvement are currently being undermined by the actions, seemingly aided and abetted by Mr Seetaram’s party, of the Government and the recently coined ‘New GuySuCo,’ We need not remind Mr Seetaram that sugar workers are the only group of State employees who have had their pay stagnated at the 2014 levels in spite of the rise in the cost-of-living; nor do we have to remind him about the reduced API in 2015 and its outright denial in 2016. He also should be well aware of the withdrawal of other long-standing, established benefits such as release-with-pay to attend the union’s congress, or to participate in educational courses organised by the union, and since he writes with such knowledge of the sugar industry, he ought to know too of the flagrant violations of the laws of the land, the collective labour agreement, international labour conventions, long-standing principles and practices and even our sacred Constitution by the state-owned sugar company. While the AFC Region Five councillor accuses us of fooling workers, the union questions what deceit he is referring to, for the facts speak for themselves and do not support your propagandistic outbursts.

Mr Seetaram then goes on to say that a “few estates that will be closed so as to make Guysuco and the sugar industry profitable again.” This has to be one of the most irresponsible statements of our times. Mr Seetaram, if you are not aware, in making GuySuCo what you consider profitable, 9,000 persons have to be sent to the breadline; 50,000 would be faced with imminent impoverishment; social and economic life in scores of communities would be shattered, and crime, family-break-ups and anti-social behaviour would, in all likelihood, become more rampant. This, Mr Seetaram, is to be expected as we see the partial realities now playing out in the communities of Wales. We ask, shouldn’t people and not profits be foremost? When the business environment is downsizing and investors’ confidence is being eroded, is the decision to “close a few estates” so that “GuySuCo could be profitable again” and put 9,000 people out of work still a prudent decision, Mr. Seetaram?

We then see Mr Seetaram seemingly criticising our union for not striking during the 1992 – May, 2015 period. But then we see GuySuCo, repeatedly through its missives in the press and elsewhere, accusing the union of striking too much, and incidentally the highest number of strikes occurred during that very period that Seetaram cited.  We remind the councillor that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Mr Seetaram, despite repeated clarifications by GAWU and others regarding the closure of Diamond and LBI Estates, you perpetuate making incorrect and false statements. We wonder whether it is a case of you being confused, as it seems you are, or whether you are just being mischievous. Whatever the case may be, please allow these facts to sink in. Diamond Estate was closed in 1985 when the factory and a large part of the cultivation were shuttered. What remained of the cane cultivation remained operable until 2011, when the 300-odd workers received their redundancy pay in keeping with their rights as outlined in the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act. Interestingly, it is the same law that GuySuCo is now flouting in the case of the Wales workers though a precedent has been established. Mr Seetaram, if you weren’t aware, many of those former Diamond workers took up work at Wales until that estate was placed on the chopping block without any plans for the people who were dependent on its operations. In the case of LBI, the factory was closed in 2011 and the 137 workers were absorbed into the Enmore factory, the Enmore packaging plant, and the LBI field and factory workshops. LBI Estate, however, was closed in the second half of 2016 when several departments were closed and a number of the workers were transferred to Enmore or in some cases made redundant. Our union also demanded severance for the transferred LBI workers as their jobs had become redundant. Again, notwithstanding the law and the precedent, GuySuCo has adamantly and wrongly refused the workers’ legitimate request. That matter is now engaging the attention of the court.

Mr Seetaram, our union resisted and expressed our disagreement, in the highest order, with respect to all the decisions on closures. A simple internet search would be edifying, we believe. You may also want to speak with your comrades as they should be very much aware of what really transpired.

Mr Seetaram repeats another charge that anti-union elements have levelled at us, that is that we are only concerned with dues. This is furthest from the truth as one could be. On this score, we ask the councillor if there is merit in what he is saying? Our union has called for the LBI and Wales workers to receive their severance? Certainly, a great lot of those workers will very well seek employment outside of sugar and, therefore, cannot pay dues. It seems, the author is not rationally considering the letter he signs.

Mr Seetaram continues saying that the industry should have begun a diversification programme since in the late 1990s/early 2000s. But that was done as we see the construction of a steam/diesel electricity generation plant at Skeldon, which incidentally earned $9.5B last year, and the construction of packaging facilities at Blairmont and Enmore. Furthermore, several studies found that co-generation plants at Albion, Blairmont and Enmore were viable, as well as the establishment of a refinery at Skeldon and a distillery at Albion. So Mr Seetaram, a programme of diversification was actively being pursued with good results too. Mr Seetaram, time you wake up, after all you’re a councillor still. But despite the extensive work that was done, this is now being torpedoed by the coalition and replaced with the revival of the failed other crops programme in GuySuCo.
The author then goes on to speak about the Skeldon project and charges, “how can you modernise something for the future that has no future.” The statement undoubtedly exposes Mr Seetaram’s obviously confused state of mind as, among other things, the entire project was scrutinised and then approved by the international financial institutions i.e. the IMF and World Bank. Certainly, their experts would have taken into account the future in arriving at their conclusions. And, while the Skeldon factory is labelled as “failed,” we hasten to say to Mr Seetaram that he ought to be told that buyers are expressing their ready interest, including a team that should be known by his party, to acquire the factory. The actions we see playing out certainly casts doubt on the statements in the letter.

We then are told that instead of Skeldon, a fund of some sort should have been set up to assist sugar workers to become entrepreneurs. Well, what a grand suggestion but we wonder, if, for instance, all or many of the sugar workers become businessmen and women, where will their customers come from, especially in light of a declining population? If Mr Seetaram is so convinced about this, why is he not making similar suggestions to his ‘comrades’ who are now in the driver’s seat? Is it a case of empty barrels making the most noise?

Mr Seetaram also speaks about where the monies would come from to finance sugar’s future. He needs to be reminded that between the EU monies and 20-year (1976-1996) Sugar Levy; the State received as much as $100B. That is apart from several other contributions by the sugar industry by way of workers income tax, corporation tax, drainage and irrigation services, medical services, lands for housing, among other things. This could very well total tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars which, in effect, have been saved by the State over the years.

The ramblings of Mr Seetaram are nothing more than to deflect from the serious consequences that would befall the people and the communities of the sugar belt. There is no amount of lipstick that the author can put on the proverbial pig that would make the Government’s plans seem more attractive. At the end of the day, too many Guyanese will suffer and the future of thousands will be blackened and shattered. As a responsible organisation, GAWU will stand by and struggle with the workers as they face these assaults and challenges.

Yours faithfully,

Seepaul Narine
General-Secretary