Dear Editor

REFERENCE is being made to GAWU General-Secretary Seepaul Narine’s letter, “GAWU does not share Lincoln’s views” (14th February 2020). I acknowledge GAWU’s bleating statement that the union is “not discomfited by Mr. Jagdeo’s advocacy on behalf of the sugar workers.” This sheepish attitude when it comes to holding any leader in the PPP accountable for his/her action is their right. I shall exercise my right to hold all political leaders– government and opposition– to account for their stewardship and their treatment of workers/citizens, without fear, favour or ill will.

As a fellow citizen and trade unionist the view is held that Bharrat Jagdeo as President and leader of the opposition made no significant effort to protect and advance the well-being of sugar workers and their communities. His record bears me out on this where a floundering industry was never given the opportunity to survive through diversification and proper re-capitalisation, depending heavily on financial sustenance from the Consolidated Fund.
The case was also made by PPP spokesperson Dr. Roger Luncheon that the more than US$200 million investment in the Skeldon factory produced a “letdown” (KN 29th March 2013). Similar disappointment was expressed regarding the PPP government’s management of the European Union diversification funds, where in that said article the same gentleman confirmed the money was never released to GuySuCo!

With regard to the recent happenings in GuySuCo and its financially distressed state, the view is firmly held that Jagdeo, as leader of the opposition, could have emulated his predecessors and played a more pivotal role working with government in the industry’s restructuring and bringing the unions and management to the table to negotiate better working conditions for the workers. That he did neither of these and GAWU is not discomfited, this is duly noted and respected.

Diamond Estate was closed by the Jagdeo government, a fact Seepaul cannot change. Neither can he change my view that the PPP government should have offered the affected sugar workers preferential treatment to acquire house lots when those lands were sold for housing development. Nothing can change his view about the bonds paying wages and salaries, even though the source was quoted and this is conceded.

However, given that GAWU holds the view– as others, including NICIL (the organiser of the bonds)– that the bonds are accruing interest and GuySuCo is not moving to effect any project to utlise same, again, the nonchalant role of the leader of the opposition cannot be ignored. A complacent GuySuCo adversely impacts the welfare of sugar workers. Dr. Cheddi Jagan would not have stayed silent or stood by and allowed this to happen. The same could be said for Desmond Hoyte or Robert Corbin. Where comparisons can be made Jagdeo is found wanting.

That having been said on the matter of saying there was an “agreement” in pay increase, what I said was, “the media reported the sugar unions and GuySuCo’s management have struck an agreement for wage increase” (GC 13th Feb). Seepual’s clarification that the media erred because no agreement was reached is noted. It is however noted in today’s newspapers (18th February) GuySuCo’s statement that the company proposed a five percent wage increase not the one percent as reportedly claimed by the union, which it rejected as a “measly offer,” questioning the timing. A clarification from the union becomes necessary. I end by saying as a trade unionist a strategy in negotiation is to capitalise on the environment and the vulnerability of the opponent. Where the current political environment presents opportunity for the workers to benefit, it is up to GAWU and the sugar workers to determine if the opportunity will be taken or ignored. Whatever decision they make is respected.

Regards
Lincoln Lewis