Dear Editor,
IT HAS always bothered me how governments tend to become most stingy when it comes to paying workers a living wage. Here, in Guyana — from Burnham and Jagan to Jagdeo and Ramotar, and now Granger — Government has come up with all kinds of excuses why its workers should not be paid more.From the 1960s to this present time, government workers have always seemed to have to beg Government for better wages, and consequently have had to take industrial action to force Government’s hand. The final offer to Public Service workers is obscene, especially coming from a Government that gave itself 50% increase just a year ago.

To begin with, the wages of these workers are already extremely low, even by Caribbean standards; they do not earn a living wage by any stretch of the imagination. Here are workers who have to keep Government going being treated as if they do not have a right to life.

Public servants in Guyana have never recovered from the IMF conditionalities implemented by the Hoyte government 30 years ago. Their wages have since always lagged very far behind the cost of living in Guyana. The problem has now become a systemic one that needs aggressive Government intervention. It is a matter of the human right to life, as workers are expected to pay for the bare essentials of life with their wages. It is also a matter of social equality, as most of these workers in the public service come from relatively poor backgrounds. When you keep their wages depressed, you are contributing to the perpetuation of poverty.

This Government came to power with the slogan “A good life for all”, but based on this recent wage offer, it seems as if the “all” does not include public service workers. What good life can anyone enjoy with the kind of wages public servants earn? Look at the cost for rent, food, clothing, transportation, and other essentials and tell me if the current wages can suffice.

Who are public servants? As I already pointed out, they are mostly poor people. A large percentage of them are women who have to sustain children by themselves. Most of them are from one ethnic group; and, very importantly, most of them voted for the Government that is now depressing their wages.

Everything about that scenario is wrong. Government has a moral and political duty to offer the workers much more than the current offer. The union has hinted that it would settle for 20%. That is not adequate, but it would represent a decent start.

No, we are not a rich country, but the little revenue we have must be fairly and justly distributed. Look at the tens of millions we are forking out for bonds we do not need; stadiums we could do without; and contracts to big shots who do shoddy work, to name a few extravagances. We didn’t agonise to give our leaders 50% increases.

This Government has to put in effect the vision articulated in its manifesto. The offer to the public servants is most inconsistent with what is in that manifesto.

The PPP is gone. While we must, from time to time, draw comparisons between them and the current Government, the latter ultimately has to be evaluated against its own promises.

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr. would have said: “Be true to what you put on paper.”
Regards,
DAVID HINDS