THE wages/salaries’ issue between the Government and the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) is obviously of interest to citizens. Some have opined that the increases are comparative to what had been imposed by the Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar governments; others view it as inadequate based on public servants’ economic status vis-a-vis the significant increases Cabinet awarded itself and Members of Parliament.

That being noted, attention cannot be lost sight of the process that must at all times be respected and applied to deliver an agreement acceptable to the parties; that is, Government and GPSU. There exists an established mechanism that if the parties, at the bilateral level, cannot arrive at agreement, the issue in contention shall be referred to conciliation. This was upheld in the 1999 impasse between Government and GPSU; from the failure to arrive at an agreement, the parties proceeded to arbitration. At that stage, all decisions of the panel were final and binding on both sides.

Government, being the representative of the state, as the major employer, also has responsibility to uphold and respect laws. The Trade Union Recognition Act, Chapter 98:07, Section 23 (1) states that where a trade union is recognised, the employer shall negotiate in good faith. When the Government can publicly state it shall pay the wages/salaries’ increases even though the union has said there exists no agreement, this speaks to an imposition. Where a non-agreement exists, either party can request conciliation. Instead, the APNU+AFC Administration has opted to mirror the conduct of the Jagdeo and Ramotar governments, inasmuch as it had condemned that conduct when in the opposition. Jagdeo, Ramotar and Granger/Nagamootoo governments have all talked with the GPSU one or two times, then imposed wages/salaries afterwards. The only difference with the APNU+AFC is that the Minister of Finance announced in the National Assembly this administration’s commitment to respect the right to collective bargaining. Today this right is being trampled, and the law that protects it is being violated.

There is the thinking that the GPSU, in rejecting the offer, is being self-destructive. I fundamentally disagree with this thought, though some who expressed it are well-meaning. Where time-honoured principles, laws and rules are established, you cannot circumvent them, lest circumvention undermines the foundation upon which law, order, and mutual respect is built. Governance is grounded on established guidelines, and no disregard for the established process in dealing with matters — be it collective bargaining, public procurement or otherwise — must be supported, for these cannot be cherry picked.

The issues between the National Communications Network (NCN) and Mrs. Jocelle Archibald-Hawke and Ms. Natasha Smith are reflections that decisions at the level of government and state institutions continue to be made by gut feelings and not by due diligence. The recognised union at the NCN is the Clerical and Commercial Workers Union (CCWU), and it is compulsory (by way of law) that the management engages the CCWU on any request it makes on behalf of its members. Management cannot make up rules and apply them in the workplace as it deems fit.

The Trade Union (Amendment) Act (1984) makes it clear that a Collective Labour Agreement is legal and binding on the employer and trade union, unless expressly stated otherwise. These agreements outline what workers can be disciplined for, and how the process is to be handled. Compounding the gut-feeling approach to management are Ministers Lawrence and Scott, who inserted themselves in the issues like headless chickens, taking on the role of clerks, and denying the technicians the opportunity to discharge their duties.

The involvement of the Ministry of Social Protection should, in this instance, have been by way of the Chief Labour Officer and his team, who are industrial relations’ practitioners. The NCN matter was not that of crisis. A crisis exists at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Incorporated (GB&GWU), where the workers are denied their right to belong to a trade union of choice, and the ministers continue to be collaborators with a management that reminds us of those who had enslaved our forebears. Running to NCN presented opportunity for the ministers to hoodwink society into believing that they understand their roles and are discharging their duties. Mrs. Archibald-Hawke remains on suspension, while the management maintains its unreasonable position. From an industrial relations’ standpoint, this constitutes horse trading, where management receded on one but held steadfast on the other, despite being wrong.

At the City Council, Town Clerk Royston King fancies himself a Caesar in his demonstration of scant regard for universally acceptable principles. The vendors whom he once used to go after Carol Sooba are now targets of his ruthlessness. Sooba, whom he once condemned for having the City Council pay for her bodyguards, has seen him increase the numbers who now guard him. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This country continues to experience instances when men and women — though some may be new to their positions — abuse the offices they hold, and show no regard for the laws, rules and principles governing official conduct and the people they are elected or appointed to serve. Our voices cannot be still in the presence of the things we once condemned. It must matter not whether one voted for the party in office: right is right and wrong is wrong. If this is not the governance we think we deserve, we must speak out.