The Sugar Conundrum

Earlier this month, we discussed the challenges facing the sugar industry in Guyana with a particular focus on labour.

(“Reload Sugar”) The new minister of agriculture had announced what we considered to be a more realistic target for the industry this year. The immediate concern then had been precipitated by a strike at Blairmont over workers’ claim that benefits under ‘custom and practice” were violated by management.

Unfortunately, since then there has been another symptom of the fragile state of the industry exposed – specifically GuySuCo’s inability to pay the Annual Production Incentive bonus to field workers. Workers at Blairmont added this to their list of grievances and were joined by their cohorts at Rose Hall. But what is most disquieting has been the alacrity with which leaders of the Alliance for Change (AFC) plunged into the industrial dispute to fan the flames of discontent.

Mr Moses Nagamootoo of the AFC reportedly assured striking workers of the AFC’s unconditional support; assuring them that management “cannot touch you.” This statement was quite provocative in view of the fact that there was no evidence or even allegations that workers had been threatened by management.

The intervention of the political party was even more perplexing when Mr Nagamootoo candidly accepted that, “The sugar industry is in crisis. They have to show that they can manage, cut costs, cut production cost… (to borrow from)… a bank in T& T – $ 8- 10 billion.”

Even though the AFC later claimed they do not intend to replace GAWU as the bargaining agent for the workers, it is obvious from their statement that they were fully conversant with the industrial practices of the industry. The field workers of the sugar industry are represented by GAWU and there is a signed agreement as to how disputes between management and workers are to be addressed. The strike by the workers was a “wildcat strike” which violated the labour agreement.

If in fact, the AFC as a political party was hopefully seized by nationalist concerns for the viability of an industry owned and operated by the ‘people of Guyana’, they should have taken the time to discuss the nature of the dispute with both management and workers. As we pointed out in our editorial “Reload Sugar”, tinkering with ‘custom and practice’ benefits by management have an element of subjectivity that is sure to raise the hackles of workers.

But surely, the AFC would concede that if the industry is in such dire straits, it must inevitably enter an era of austerity. Concededly, the austerities must surely be shared by all ‘stakeholders’ of the industry – including management – but the old atmosphere of inevitable warfare between ‘capitalists’ and ‘proletariat’ will have to be jettisoned.

For Mr Nagamootoo of the AFC to imply that GAWU might not be representing workers’ interests but rather pandering to the whims of management is a rather low blow. Only a few months ago, it was the same gentleman who wooed the same workers by asserting that he defended GAWU against a management/ board intervention to decertify it. For the AFC to want to have it both ways is to expose itself to charges of political opportunism and adventurism.

That the sugar industry is in crisis must be the starting point of any analysis or intervention. The powers that be, whether in the government or in management have long recognised this reality especially when the inhibiting structural factors – being addressed since 1998, were joined by the devastatingly unilateral 36 per cent slash in prices by our largest market – the EU. The authorities have consistently intervened to avert disaster – a new factory, new management, a new plan etc. Most recently the union has been invited on the Board. This is not the time for opportunistic interventions but rather mature collaboration.