In the midst of the most profound political crisis in Guyana, precipitated by a leader of the PNC since Desmond Hoyte decided to bring that party into the streets to protest the December 1997 elections, the PNC-led APNU/AFC coalition Government is facing down two of the largest unions in the country — the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) and the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) — over their demand for salary increases.
Some believe the two circumstances, conjoined as they are, are not unrelated.
During the last elections campaign, the parties made explicit promises in their coalition Manifesto to these workers: “Significant salary increases for Government workers, including nurses; teachers in primary, secondary and tertiary education; security personnel; and civil servants on the traditional payroll.” In the ethnically polarised politics of Guyana, these predominantly African Guyanese workers, in the main, voted for the PNC.
However, even though the coalition administration awarded its ministers a massive 50% salary increase once it acceded to office in 2015, Government workers received an average increase of 5%. Many analysts concluded that the Government took for granted the political support of its ethnic constituency.
However, at the May Day Rally of 2015, then presidential candidate David Granger was even more explicit about the policy of his future Government in terms of the sore point of “collective bargaining” Government workers had been demanding of the PPP Administration. He gave a “guarantee that we will stand behind unions, so that unions can sit down with employers and restore collective bargaining… it is back to the bargaining table; that is what APNU+AFC will give you. No more frecks!”
Yet, the following year, President Granger announced that, “Lazy public servants will receive lazy person’s salary”, and his Government unilaterally imposed salary increases ranging from 1% to 10%, even though the GPSU, for instance, had reduced its initial demand for 40% down to 25%. The GPSU had its members accept the payment, but said they were not accepting the Government’s unilateral imposition. As far as they were concerned, the 2016 salary negotiation was still open.
For teachers, who had expressed grave disappointment with their “paltry” raise in comparison with the ministers’, and who had not received their “debunching” payments between 2011 and 2015, in December 2015 demanded the former to be rectified and renegotiated for 2016-2020 on top of the 40% across-the-board increase in salary for teachers in 2016, 45% for 2017, and 50% for the following three years (2018-2020) for all categories of teachers. Eventually, even though President Granger said their increase would be “different” from that of the GPSU, they were also unilaterally given the same 1% – 10% increase, with no “debunching”.
For 2017, the negotiations with the GPSU began in September, and the GPSU proposed a ,000 monthly increase be added to the salary at December 31, 2016, and to the minimum and maximum bands. Additionally, they demanded a 20 per cent increase across-the-board to the salary as at December 2016, and to the amount payable at the minimum and maximum bands. Two weeks ago, the Government imposed its “final offer”, ranging from 8% for the lowest salary of ,000 (taking it to ,000) to ½% at the top band. GPSU President, Patrick Yarde, said he “felt betrayed” by the Government and its refusal to keep its promise to return to collective bargaining, but once again, he told his members to accept the increase. Some believe that the President’s earlier decision to appoint Yarde to the Public Service Commission presented a conflict of interest, since Yarde might be influenced to go along with the Government’s unilateral action.
The GTU, on the other hand, left its meeting last week with Education Minister Henry after five minutes had elapsed, when its President concluded that Henry was not seriously considering the union’s proposal, on the table for two years. He called for teachers to strike later this week, but placed that on hold when he was informed the President wanted to have a discussion with the Union.
We hope the President does not continue with his unilateral impositions.
