Wednesday was Labour Day. It is the day when workers are supposed to celebrate their togetherness. They had managed to band themselves to ensure that their conditions of work were fair, that their pay was just and that no employer could use and discard them on whims and fancies. It had to take a genius to come up with the Labour union concept., Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, a waterfront worker, founded the British Guiana Labour Union in 1917. It was the first organized labour organisation in Guyana.
At the age of 21, he began his struggle for the interest of waterfront workers’ wages negotiations and rights. He is recognized today as the father of local trade unionism. Every labour union that came after, aligned itself with the Guyana Labour Union. Labour Day or May Day became nationally recognized. Workers from every quarter marched through the streets on this day to show their solidarity. They sang Solidarity Forever, a song that was written 109 years ago in defiance of the authorities in the industrialised world.
The colours chosen worldwide was red and white. That continues to this day.
In Guyana, the solidarity came crashing down in the face of political interference. The labour union movement became divided into political factions. It does not take a scholar to determine who organised the breakaway faction. To this day the movement is fragmented.
And as for being fragmented, it is no secret which unions benefit the most from the present government. Any of the government supportive unions that chose to protest saw an immediate resolution of any problem they might have had. The others have to fight to have their problems resolved. The sugar union only has to threaten before the government keels over. The others, all larger than the sugar union of the day, must fight tooth and nail.
Back in 1999, the Guyana Public Service Union, the largest in the country, called a strike that shut down the city. The government refused to budge to the demands to the point of calling out the police to shoot at the striking workers. That had a serious fallout. The nurses who were represented by the GPSU, decided to get their own back at the police who had to seek medical attention at the Georgetown Public Hospital. In the end, no policeman went to the GPHC for fear of being mistreated or left to suffer.
The government under Bharrat Jagdeo spent huge sums of money at private medical institutions. The strike was resolved by mediation that saw workers getting a 50 per cent hike in salaries over two years. But Jagdeo got his own back. The public servants soon found that the increase they got was eroded, and very quickly. Prices went up astronomically.
At the same time the government moved to reduce the GPSU to little more than a toothless poodle. It cancelled the agency fee arrangement with the union. Today, many wonder if the GPSU is a militant group.
Such was the situation that the nurses wanted to start their own trade union organization. The plans collapsed. Of course, the government passed legislation that prevented the nurses from striking in the manner they did in 1999.
As if to test the mettle of the GPSU, the teachers who recently went on strike, expected support from GPSU. None was forthcoming. The teachers had to go it alone, and they did. They moved to the courts and secured a favourable ruling which the government has decided to appeal all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Of interest is the show of solidarity when the unions assemble for the traditional Labour Day march. All goes well until they reach the National Park. They then split up to hold their separate rallies. The government sends its speakers to address the faction—six trade unions—that supports it.
Solidarity Forever. That concept has gone through the window. Solidarity is dependent on political affiliation. During the recent strike by the Guyana Teachers Union there was no solidarity in certain quarters.
Indeed, teachers have their own political affinity. A great many saw the greater good and concentrated on securing a better pay and other conditions. There were reports of the government sending its agents to its political strongholds to bribe the teachers.
Some took the bribe and declined to continue with the strike action. They were the weak ones. They knew that if they simply report to school they would be paid. The Education Ministry had sent out a circular ordering a record of those who absented themselves. This record would have been used to determine salary deduction from the absent teachers.
The court has since ruled that the note was null and void. But there is the dishonesty involved. Despite breaking ranks with the striking teachers those who returned to school would enjoy all the benefits earned as a result of the strike. It was the same with the general strike of 1999. Those opposed for one reason or the other eagerly collected the benefits. It was like being rewarded for doing nothing.
The divide and rule policy is going to work these days unlike the period of the major strikes of 1963 and 1964. For starters, people do not have disposable income. Many are living pay cheque to pay cheque. Pay for strike days was not guaranteed so people sacrificed future benefit for the pay today. The government held the advantage. The court decision in the GTU action could tilt the balance in favour of the workers. This explains the rush by the government to appeal to the CCJ.
