GAWU, the PPP/C and the Goose that laid the golden egg
Dear Editor,
None of us can find comfort in the plight of the close to five thousand sugar workers who recently found themselves on the breadline. When the dust finally settles, we must, as a nation, ask ourselves why were we so ill-prepared for this eventuality which was long in coming but which we steadfastly chose to ignore.
At the core of this mess has been the poor and disruptive leadership of GAWU which positioned itself as a fierce adversary of the industry rather than as a partner committed to ensuring that the industry proves to be the best that it can be.
Equally guilty is the PPP/Civic which weaponized sugar (and also rice) in pursuit of its political agenda by giving unflinching support to GAWU with its slash and burn approach to industrial relations. What should have been an environment reflecting good economic and social relations with common goals became a battle zone that grew progressively worse over time.
Strikes, the burning of canes and the willful destruction of plant and equipment became the core focus of GAWU rather than them seeking to improve production and productivity. And, of course, these are the teachings as promulgated to those who would have attended the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow to be used as part of their political tool kit.
Those of us old enough will recall the “heady” days when sugar was “king”, with prices reaching their peak in late 1974. But more than a decade before that, sugar workers were reaping a bountiful harvest, enjoying benefits such as house lots for$100; mortgage loans from the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund repayable at $2 per week and $1 per week upon retirement; free medical facilities and community /entertainment centres with cricket and football fields that were on par with the GCC and GFC grounds at Bourda and which are currently good enough to host regional cricket matches.
Not to mention were the various bonuses that were paid in the in-crop and out of crop seasons that enabled a life style that lower-ranked public servants and bauxite workers did not enjoy and which took their children out of the cane fields and placed them in class-rooms in primary and secondary schools across Guyana and with many going further afield.
Logies with their thatched roofs and mud floors were removed from the landscape and replaced by brightly painted housing schemes.
Paradoxically, those in the industry such as pan boilers, carpenters, mechanics and masons, many with forty or more years of service, and who lived in adjacent villages, did not enjoy the land and housing benefits that were enjoyed by their field colleagues who lived in the sugar belt. This dichotomy partially explains up to today the contrast in housing conditions between villages along coastal Guyana.
Despite enjoying such envious benefits, the industry was plagued with a level of indiscipline that has not been seen elsewhere in Guyana or perhaps elsewhere in the region. Week after week there continued to be wild cat strikes with estates seemingly taking turns in determining which one was going to strike in a particular week.
But above all, the strikes were carried out with a venom against the PNC-led administration during its twenty-eight years in office. There appeared to be a single-mindedness in wanting to destroy the industry by committing such acts as those described earlier.
Little did they realize that in seeking to remove the PNC from office by their destructive acts, they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Somehow, nobody seemed to realize or cared that the burning of canes meant lower yields; that work days lost through strikes meant lower production and productivity and these, when combined, meant lower earnings, leaving the industry short of badly needed resources to recapitalize and refurbish its operations.
And, when the Europeans gave early warnings of their intention to reduce the level of their price support to the industry over time, no serious attempt was made to determine how to reposition the industry to keep it alive.
The approach taken was that sugar was too big to fail and that the taxpayers of Guyana had deep pockets to fill the financing gap. Indeed, no other industry has enjoyed the level of subsidies like the sugar industry.
But alas, for an economy the size of Guyana’s, it would be reckless to continue to prop up an industry that is badly haemorrhaging, (subsidies of $3bn annually and more) without some attempt at restructuring. Added taxes to a tax base that is supported by those least able, or massive borrowings or “the printing of money” are no longer viable options for continuing to finance the industry, leaving Government with no option but to take corrective action.
Good leaders must be able to assess the implications of their actions and to anticipate changes in the environment in which they function; they must closely follow emerging trends and position their organizations to fluidly embrace those on-coming changes.
Any objective analysis would show that GAWU and the PPP/C have served their followers very poorly by not preparing them for this eventuality and worse yet, by giving them the assurance that it is business as usual. The PPP/C had twenty-three years in office and had ample notice from the Europeans of their intention to reduce the level of their price support. Yet they failed to act.
An important lesson from this whole episode is that recklessness in the approach to industrial relations has consequences at the level of the firm as well as the country. Count the costs to date of those weekly strikes, the tens of thousands or perhaps millions of acres of cane burnt and other damage carried out and try to determine how much more sustainable our sugar industry might have been. Trade Union members must also keep questioning whether actions taken by their unions are in their best socio-economic interests and if not, move with their feet.
GAWU, supported by the PPP/C, has been a toxic union and must be severely damaged in the eyes of potential investors who may wish to acquire any of the current or closed estates and who may wish to rehire some of the retrenched workers. With respect to those remaining in the industry, it is perhaps time for them to critically decide whether a continuing relationship with GAWU is in their best interest.
For its part, Government must quickly organize a consultation involving a group of local, regional and international experts on the way forward to determine how best to respond to the upcoming social and economic challenges that will no doubt arise from this retrenchment exercise. The time is of now.
Steve Fraser