— commonalities of 1989 and 2018

POLITICIANS will always fight for control of the turf in Labour, because it is the largest, permanent, continuous organisation of citizens who are eligible to cast a ballot at national, regional and local government elections.

The spirited fight being witnessed today between the political opponents — the APNU+AFC Government and PPP/C Opposition — as to the direction in which the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) should go, is informed by this fact, and in other instances the desire to control or seek to destroy where control does not exist.

Action to the contrary would see determined efforts to demonstrate respect for advancing the workers’ welfare consistent with ILO Conventions No. 87 and 98 that speak not only to protecting the fundamental right and freedom of workers, but also non-interference in the day-to-day activities of the trade union. Further, the rights of the members of the trade union to determine who are their leaders and what course of action they will take within the confines of the laws, and respecting the Labour Laws would not be trifled with or compromised.

What we are witnessing today is not new to the trade union community. On the 4th April, 1989, when bauxite workers walked off the job protesting the devaluation of the Guyana dollar, three days after sugar workers joined the struggle. In that period, the activities of the Catholic Church, other men of the cloth, forces in the then political opposition and some in the business community became active in wanting to influence the direction and agenda for the labour movement.

Labour leaders of the time — yours truly, Christopher James, Komal Chand, George Daniels, and the late Leslie Melville and Gordon Todd — worked assiduously in making sure the struggle was not hijacked by the politicians. At the commencement of this strike, the then Federation of Independent Trade Union (FITUG, 1988-1993),which was established to repel every element of external influence in determining the path of the trade union movement consistent with ILO Conventions, stood its ground.

As the 1989 strike prolonged, the options each day towards having a resolution became fewer and the gates at the plant narrower. The bauxite unions — the Guyana Bauxite and General Workers Union (GB&GWU) and the Guyana Mine Workers Union (GMWU) — were the first to strike an agreement with the bauxite industry.

There is vivid recall of an invitation extended to me — and whomever I wanted to be part of the delegation — by Sylvester Carmichael, Vice-President (Marketing) at the Bauxite Industry Development Company (BIDCO). Discussion was held with Chris James, GMWU General-Secretary, who shared the view that dialogue was important at every level.

As such, we mobilised a small team and met Carmichael the said day the invitation was issued. At that discussion, which took an informal format, ideas were thrown up and it was decided that one way of addressing or resetting the relativity in the purchasing power of the workers is for the company to find indigenous measures in addressing the potential deprivation that devaluation brought.

The idea of placing one per cent of the earnings from calcined bauxite into a fund to subsidise the cost of essential food items for bauxite workers was floated as a viable proposal to be made to management. The following day at about 9:00 a.m., Carmichael advised the unions that the management of the bauxite industry had bought the idea and would be making a proposal to the Desmond Hoyte government. By that evening, the unions were informed that the government had bought into the idea and the following day negotiations around the table commenced.

By the 4th May, 1989, the named bauxite unions and GUYMINE had a comprehensive framework as to how we can work to resolve our differences. On the 5th May, the unions advised the FITUG executive of the negotiation and where we were. The GAWU leadership, in the person of Chand, indicated its desire to use our format and approach GuySuCo and here he requested that in solidarity, bauxite and sugar move to bring about normalcy at the same time, with which the majority agreed.

FITUG met again on the 12th May — by this time the named bauxite unions and bauxite industry had sealed an agreement — and at this meeting publicly announced the strike should come to an end by the 13th May. At that point the opposition political operatives and the religious and business communities had put their propaganda machinery in place, claiming that the bauxite unions’ leadership was bought out and the workers must resist any call to end the strike.

On the 15th May, a FITUG delegation comprising Todd, Melville and Chand travelled to Linden to join the leadership of the bauxite unions in correcting the misinformation and calling for the resumption of work. As we walked into the GB&GWU Hall on Bulletwood Street, a rope was hanging over the stage, indicating to union leaders and that there was disgruntlement among the membership and they were prepared to hang us. This rage was testimony to the effectiveness of a wicked propaganda to secure political turf control.

This rage was defused, and here I want to mention a role Chand played in this regard. He stood before an incensed and agitated crowd, saying words to the effect — that he is a PPP and wants the PNC out of office, but this strike is not about bringing down the PNC government, it’s about resetting the economic relativity in the system so that workers can live better.

In closing let me make very clear two issues: 1) Chand’s position today in dealing with the government on the handling of sugar, which is in opposition to Bharrat Jagdeo’s, and his rejecting Prime Minster Moses Nagamootoo seeking to reference this conflict in government’s outreach to affected sugar workers, is tactical and not unexpected; and 2) the intractable politics cultivated during the Jagdeo presidency – and which continue today — where there is no regard for the right to freedom of association, independence of organisation, and wisdom in bringing resolution to grievances soonest is backward and must stop.

This society has to develop and in order for growth to take place, bad habits and poor governance have to be shunned.