’ Archives
’ International
’ Caribbean News
|
A Travesty
June 11, 2001
A week from now we will be commemorating the 64th anniversary of the anti-colonial uprising among the victories of which is the birth of modern trade unions in our country.
It is indeed a travesty that on the eve of this event a major union could seek to levy a penalty on a group of workers who are to receive some benefit 7 years after being put out of work in the name of privatisation.
At the beginning of the decade of the 90's under the direction of the NAR then the PNM, an offensive as part of the anti-social agenda was launched in the form of privatisation of the functions of government departments and statutory bodies.
On June 15th, 1994, the workers of the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and the Tourism Development Authority (TDA) were dismissed from their jobs and the private sector operated TIDCO came into existence to replace these agencies.
For more than 2 years before that traumatic afternoon when workers were handed their final letters of termination, these workers were the frontline soldiers of the union in its fight against this privatisation drive.
Some of these workers as part of their protest had refused to accept the small "enhancements" in termination benefits offered as part of VSEP before that. Some who had just returned from studies and owed more for study loans than they would get in terminal benefits could not apply.
Some 35 of these workers from both the IDC and TDA filed, with the assistance of the union, a High Court action challenging the closure of the 2 organisations and several of the workers for 7 years since then tirelessly pursued several issues in the interest of the entire 200 or so dismissed workers.
One of those issues was the demand for immediate pensions out of a plan which in 1994 was in surplus to the extent of close to $100 million which the government refused to let go of in order to provide these workers with some improved benefits.
Late last year, without the knowledge or agreement of all of the 35 plaintiffs in that court action, the union made an agreement with TIDCO "settling" all claims arising out of this privatisation.
The union than proceeded to advise the workers by a letter of April 17 this year to "Please note that the cost of $2,000 which represents partial arrears of union dues you should have paid during the period April 1994 - April 2001 would be deducted from your lumpsum payment." (Emphasis mine – CW)
Imagine a union telling people who have been put out of work that it will be "deducting" money out of the benefits that these workers have persistently fought for over 7 years even while scattered after their ignominious dismissals! Such an action borders on the criminal!
What dues do these workers owe? Well, according to the union's own rules they owe nothing. Some were never members and never had to pay dues. Those who were members having been retrenched according to rule 10 of its rules owe nothing.
The President of this union which numbers itself among the "progressive" side of the latest split in the trade union movement sought to justify this on a Sunday morning radio talk show by claiming
1. that there are provisions in the law that allow the union to levy this money - agency shop
Well, the PSA has not one agency shop order in any of its bargaining units even at this time.
2. that where the union acts for non-members it charges a research fee
That policy applies to individual workers who approach the union for representation on disputes relative to them. This is a matter of a collective issue and perhaps when negotiations are settled in other bargaining units, workers can now expect to be charged a fee by the union.
3. that "nothing is free” and the levy represents the cost of the union's services
Well, perhaps the union can tell the workers what services it rendered including legal fees that amounts to the $400,000 it has budgeted to receive by this levy on its former members and frontline soldiers. It could never be justified.
Or, perhaps the workers who while paying dues in the years of their battles prior to 1994 should submit bills to the union to represent the cost of the sacrifices they made in the cause of the union.
This situation stinks to high heaven!
It is a sad day that a union has to take such desperate measures against its own who have suffered at the hands of the employer and at the brunt of the anti-social offensive of the moneybags of this society.
The fact that the union has reduced the levy for some of the workers does not change the price of cocoa.
These workers weary after these years of battle and suffering all kinds of deprivation have given in, of all people, to their union and its demand for tribute for its "services". Their concern that the small sums that they are to receive may be even further delayed has prevented them from resisting this perfidy completely.
But it would be a tragedy if it were to pass behind a wall of silence.
I refuse to be silent. I had the honour to stand shoulder to shoulder with them over the years of their staunch support for their own interests and that of all public workers fighting against the privateers who now pocket huge sums of money on the basis of their suffering.
For them to be treated this way by an organisation that is supposed to represent their interests is indeed a serious travesty.
All workers who are conscious of their collective interests cannot remain silent in the face of injustice no matter who is the perpetrator.
There is too much silence these days.
HOMEPAGE
Copyright © Clyde Weatherhead
Site Designed and maintained By: Trinicenter.com.
|
