Do not give Lyte and McDonald a free pass (Part 2)

Dear Editor,
In a previous correspondence, I made mention of the GTU strike as being a political venture, the root cause of which had manifested itself in the machinations of the union itself. Note well that the strike was initiated by the general secretary, who is a parliamentarian and activist of the Opposition, and she did this under the mistaken belief that the Government was about to call a snap election; therefore, use the opportunity to pressure them with some inordinate demands.
You would recall Miss McDonald saying emphatically that teachers will not be returning to the classroom, nor would they (Union) return to the bargaining table, except and until the Government grants them a 50 per cent increase. Pretty strong words coming from an employee to an employer, and that amount kept changing when they realized that Government was not going to bow to pressure.
Instead of returning to the bargaining table, to thrash out their differences and come to an amicable solution, she went on to make statements to the effect that if she contested an election, she would certainty get six seats in Parliament. If that is not political, then what is?
When that statement was made, Dr Lyte and his teachers should have, in an instant, censored her for bringing them into a political standoff with the Government. Her actions violated the tenets of industrial relations, and, as such, ordinary teachers should have come out in strong condemnation of the GTU leadership.
But they did not. Instead, they kept holding up a cheerleading banner of encouragement for her.
When this did not work, the weak Lyte took over. He took the matter to court to get “legal cover” for their actions. Now, in its truest sense, this judgement did not mean what the GTU interpreted it to be; that is, going on in a never-ending strike while being paid at the same time. What a fantastic idea!
Now, where in the world is this possible? Or where in the world can workers be paid to be on a continuous vacation? Whose duty would it be to pay those striking teachers? These were the factors that brought Lyte to the sobering conclusion that the strike had to come to an end, and he and crew must get back to the bargaining table.
Meantime Government, which has always been open to discussions, was patiently calling the union back to the bargaining table; and with good reason, because if the term ended on a strike, it meant the summer vacation would also be included as strike action; it meant you had not officially ended the term in a classroom. That’s the law! So, in effect, The Government was making a way out for the union.
I am on record giving advice to the GTU. I intimated that the union should have ended the strike at the juncture of the court ruling and head straight back into bargaining. They could have mounted an excuse that they were misled by their lawyers and were now conciliatory in their approach, willing and able to negotiate in good faith. The 10-day legal strike, and maybe the one month thereafter, could have been easily entered into. I had said it then, and am saying it again: there is no PPP/C Government who would have backed away from such a deal.
But when you have a general secretary that is so vested in politics, and a doting president who went along with her plan, that placed the union into deeper uncertainty. It was no way but her way.
Now that they have finally returned to the bargaining table, the options are limited, which means that we are left with the following:
1. The aspect of payment for the days on strike. Whose responsibility is it to pay those workers? I think that, for a union who has had twenty-odd years of free money; that is, union dues collected, it should be in a financial position to pay its workers. The union was the one who was adamant that the teachers stay off the job because they were in for a windfall judgement. So, for time spent off the job, it is the union’s responsibility to make full use of those backlog dues.
2. The situation wherein students and teachers tried to get to school but were prevented from doing so because the doors were locked by some principals is unacceptable, and must be addressed swiftly and condignly so that there be no repeat of such behaviour. If someone wanted to break the strike, he or she was free to do so.
3. We recall the longest strike held in this country. When the government of the day responded and broke it, they sent hundreds of public servants into the cane fields to work.

At the end of the 80-day standoff, it was the union’s responsibility to pay its members. The situation is no different now. So, in calling a strike of such magnitude, Lyte should have considered the issue of remuneration and payments to workers.
4. Let us now turn our attention to the agreement for teachers. In my book, all of the remaining matters where benefits are concerned should redound to the benefit of the teachers. Issues involving benefits for union executives, such as the importation of luxury items and duty-free concessions, should be cancelled forthwith! Government cannot be supportive of a union with dirty hands, neither can it be indulgent of a union wanting to live in luxury while the teachers live in want. This has to stop.
I must hasten to a close, as I make this emphatic statement: never again should Guyana be held back by a bunch of political party persons masquerading as union leaders.
Respectfully submitted
Neil Adams