The megaphone ‘negotiations’ which have been going on between the Ministry of Education and the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) since the end of last year on the matter of teachers’ salaries have only served to aggravate the tension between the Government and the nation’s educators. GTU President Sydney Murdock is less circumspect in his utterances than was the late Mr Bertram Hamilton, while Minister Jeffrey’s flair for unvarnished language has been given more latitude over the past few months than is expedient. As it is, we have ended up with a teachers’ strike in the middle of an examination term.
Meanwhile, the weary public and anxious parents have been treated to seemingly endless versions from the two sides - now three, since Chief Labour Officer Mohamed Akeel on Tuesday also had his say - of events leading to a snafu on December 19 last year. In essence, on December 18, the union had asked that the wages’ issue be referred to arbitration. Mr Akeel duly arranged a meeting for the following day between the Ministry and the GTU to discuss the request, but although Permanent Secretary Hydar Ally put in an appearance, no one from the union came. On December 20, it was formally communicated to the teachers’ representatives that the Ministry would not be taking the salaries dispute to arbitration. On January 13, the union once again requested that a meeting be scheduled to discuss arbitration proceedings with the Ministry, to no avail.
Much of the heat generated since then has revolved around the question of who really was at fault for the GTU’s non-attendance at the meeting of December 19. It has become a central issue because Minister Jeffrey cited the union’s failure to go to the meeting as the reason for the Government imposing the salary increase of 2002.
In fact, the truth about what happened on December 19 is located somewhere in the zone of failure of communication and/or misunderstanding between the GTU and the Industrial Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour. However, even if it were the case that someone or some agency were at fault in this instance, it really would be - or at least, should be - irrelevant to the issue. It has to be said that no matter what the circumstances, Minister Jeffrey could hardly make December 19 a reason for imposing a salary increase on a union, with all the implications that has for labour relations. Unless he were patently irresponsible - which is unlikely to be the case - he must have just seized on it as a convenient excuse in order to distract attention from his unilateral action, and shift it to the union’s alleged default.
While the sideshow of December 19 has taken centre stage, the core issues have been obscured. One of the more important of these is that under the Collective Labour Agreement, neither side is bound to go to arbitration, and the Ministry has in fact elected not to go to arbitration. The GTU, therefore, is not in a position to insist on this route, and should make that clear to its membership, so that they do not labour under any misconceptions about what the possibilities for a resolution of the problem are.
Having said that, however, Minister Jeffrey and the Government which he serves, made a huge error in imposing a salary increase, and then announcing that all negotiations for 2002 salaries were closed, although they would be open to discussions on 2003 increases.
The unilateral increase would not have been a problem had it been declared an interim decision pending final agreement with the union. That would still have left open the door that those increases would have been confirmed within the framework of a larger settlement on the salary question covering a longer time-frame. By by-passing the union, however, the Minister set the teachers on the road to a strike.
It is true that the Government is constrained by the international financial institutions, in terms of the budgetary increases it can allocate in any given year, for the salaries of teachers (among other public employees), and it is also true that the economy is in a slump. However, over the years the administration has been its own worst enemy.
It has made no serious attempt to craft a wages and salaries policy by engaging the unions at a serious level. Since the Government and the public service unions see each other only in the role of antagonists, each year’s salary negotiations become a potential flashpoint. In addition, in the case of the teachers, the Government has been slothful about implementing non-salary agreements negotiated by the late Mr Hamilton, more specifically in relation to the provision of house lots for educators. That too has been a source of friction contributing fuel to the current strike.
As things stand, neither side in this dispute has left themselves any room for retreat. The first thing that would be helpful is if both the Ministry of Education and the GTU would cease to trade public accusations, even if they cannot lapse into silence. In particular, let us not hear any more about December 19; it is simply clouding the debate.
The main sticking point of substance is that the Minister says that the matter of 2002 salaries is closed, while the union insists that it is not. One can only hope that the Advisory Committee set up to investigate the circumstances leading to the strike, will be able to recommend a face-saving formula for both sides, which, for example, potentially could allow the cap on 2002 salaries to be taken into account when negotiating for 2003 increases.