– Union strongly objects to Corporation’s seeming attack on protesting workers
Negotiations between the GAWU and the GuySuCo continued today (February 28) regarding pay rise for sugar workers. The Corporation, during the engagement, informed that it was the parties’ tenth (10th) occasion in considering the Union’s 2019 claims. The GuySuCo team, again, confirmed that our discussions relate to last year further buttressing the Union’s call for retroactive payments arising from the proposed pay rise to be implemented from January 01, 2019.
During the engagement, the Union suggested that the Corporation examine settling the retroactive payments to sugar workers through several installments during this year. We put forward that a reasonable timetable could be agreed to between the Union and the Corporation. We urged that our suggestion be given serious consideration and contemplation taking into account the GuySuCo’s own admission that our discussions concerned the year 2019. We also drew to the Corporation’s attention that its land was being sold by NICIL, at high costs, and representation should be furthered to obtain support to offset the payments to the workers. The GuySuCo team undertook, to share our proposal with the Management before meeting again sometime in the coming week.
The Corporation also used the meeting to apparently criticize the workers protests on February 25, 2020. The workers of the Blairmont factory were particularly singled out and it appeared to us that the GuySuCo was seeking to determine when, and possibly if, workers could strike. We had to point out to GuySuCo that the workers, with the intent of safeguarding the Corporation’s assets, and out of an abundance of caution and concern proceeded to properly bring operations of the Blairmont factory to a halt. Notwithstanding what we felt was a cogent explanation, the Corporation’s team, surprisingly, informed they could not accept the explanation. This was after we shared with GuySuCo that the estate management was aware that the workers would have been taking protest action. It appears to us that the Corporation would want a situation where the workers vacate their posts and allow the situation to go awry. This, of course, is not a position our Union and the workers could condone nor uphold.
The workers right to take part in protest actions is upheld by the Constitution. We do not believe that the GuySuCo, more so as a state-owned organization, should seek to constrict or constrain this important workers right or any right of the workers for that matter. We believed that the workers of Blairmont, like all workers, demonstrated a high degree of responsibility and only are seeking to be treated like their colleagues elsewhere in the State. They are not asking for special or unique treatment and the, apparent, decrying of their principled and justifiable actions is upsetting for us.
