THE recent strike orchestrated by the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) has sparked widespread debate and raised concerns about its legality and credibility, given the ongoing discussions between the Ministry of Education and the union.
While a majority of teachers chose not to participate, the actions taken by the GTU have come under scrutiny.

The strike’s credibility is further questioned by the backdrop of fulfilled proposals and the GTU General Secretary, Coretta McDonald’s political affiliations, raising concerns about the union’s motives and the integrity of its decision-making process.
The Ministry of Education and the GTU have been engaged in discussions, aiming to address teachers’ concerns and improve working conditions.

It is essential to acknowledge that over 60 per cent of the proposals put forth by the GTU have already been fulfilled by the government within a relatively short span of three years. This indicates a willingness on the part of the government to collaborate and make tangible improvements in the education sector.

The decision to strike amidst ongoing negotiations raises questions about the necessity and urgency of such actions, especially when constructive dialogue seems to be yielding positive results.
The credibility of the strike is further called into question by the political affiliations of McDonald, who is a member of the opposition, APNU+AFC.

McDonald’s previous acknowledgment of the PPP/C’s efforts for teachers, even claiming they had done more than the APNU+AFC, adds a layer of complexity to the situation.

It is crucial to separate legitimate grievances from potential political motivations. The involvement of a union leader with clear political ties may cast doubt on the impartiality of the strike and the true intentions behind it.
During an interview, McDonald mentioned the support of corporate sponsors for the striking teachers, but failed to disclose the identities of these sponsors.

Transparency is paramount in any public movement, especially when financial support is involved. The absence of information about corporate sponsors raises concerns about the legitimacy of the backing and prompts questions about potential hidden agendas.

The GTU strike raises significant concerns regarding its timing, necessity, and the transparency of its leadership. With ongoing discussions and a considerable number of proposals already fulfilled, the decision to strike seems premature, and the Labour Minister has already said it is illegal.

The political affiliations of the General-Secretary and the lack of transparency regarding corporate sponsors further contribute to doubts about the legitimacy and credibility of the strike action.
It is important that teachers think carefully about their actions, and analyse the motives of the union and its leadership.