Unsurprisingly, Labour Day celebrations last Thursday felt bolder and stronger than in previous years as a direct consequence of the UNC’s victory at the election in April, strongly and formally supported by several trade unions.
So much so that the new Cabinet includes a few former labour leaders in critical ministries, from Labour to Public Utilities and Energy.
This renewed closeness between the UNC and the labour movement couldn’t have been better demonstrated by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s decision to share the platform with union leaders at Charlie King Junction in Fyzabad.
But this love between trade union leaders and Government, at least at a certain point, will be tested by the harsh realities of Trinidad and Tobago’s economic challenges and the uncertainties we all face at a global level.
The challenge for Government, though, is to get its engagement with the labour movement right.
Give too much, and Government risks putting its accounts and the country’s economy in further trouble; give too little, and the honeymoon may soon be over.
That is why, for their sake and the country’s sake, a balance must be found when Government, echoed by labour leaders, speaks of collective agreement increases of at least ten per cent and even more job security for state employees, industrial law reforms to further protect workers and even the potential reopening of the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery.
A balanced approach doesn’t have to equal an anti-labour stance, as union leaders may claim to be the case.
First, robust mechanisms to protect employees’ rights–unionised or not–are one of the pillars of any civilised society, and we should be no different.
There should always be a place for the labour movement in vibrant, democratic societies, ensuring the right balance between capital and labour whilst we also acknowledge what it achieved in the past.
After all, we should always be thankful for those trade unionists and employees who fought for rights we now take for granted, such as guaranteed time off work, paid holidays, and maternity leave.
But we must also face some hard truths, beginning with the state sector.
The new Government is within its rights to propose much higher pay raises than what was on the cards under the previous administration.
But it needs to explain how it will pay for it, especially after last week’s budget review, when it shouted as loud as possible about Government’s financial hole being even bigger than previously thought.
In other words, it is saying that the State is in much bigger trouble when it comes to its deficit but is also promising considerable pay rises to state employees, with the inevitable first whack of backdated payments followed by a much higher total payroll bill for years to come.
On top of that, it is promising to look into what the unions see as the high number of people on temporary contracts, with the assumption being that they should become permanent employees, with the additional costs the move may bring without clear productivity gains or palpable returns to the taxpayer.
Actually, this is something Government should pursue as a potential quid pro quo: the pay may increase by a minimum of ten per cent, but this should be linked to productivity gains, the meeting of reasonable personal performance targets (including lower levels of absenteeism) and more, not less, flexibility so that the number of people employed by the State doesn’t keep growing without a corresponding growth in the economy and tax receipts.
Other demands are harder to understand or justify.
For instance, a key ask by some of the labour leaders is that state enterprises ought to include trade union representatives on their boards.
But why only them?
State enterprises and similar entities are public organisations often bailed out by the taxpayer due to their ongoing deficits, usually caused by a mix of poor management, awful productivity, artificially low prices, and bad debts incurred by sister state bodies.
So, what is the justification for trade union leaders having a guaranteed presence and say in those boards when these organisations are funded by all taxpayers (and especially business-derived taxes)?
That is even harder to argue when, where trade unions are recognised, they already have the kind of direct connection to senior managers and boards that others in society, who effectively own and pay for these entities, will never have.
And how will they deal with the inevitable conflict when confronted with information or challenges that may, at least at face value, go directly against their membership’s interests?
But one thing seems to unite pretty much every stakeholder: the feeling that our labour laws and the industrial relations culture as a whole ought to change if we are to really achieve social justice and prosper as a nation.
And, naturally, perspectives and opinions will be different. For that reason, Government ought to listen to all sides before putting forward critical changes to the law.
That means listening to employers in the private sector but also finding ways to understand the wants and needs of the thousands of citizens who, for whatever reason, aren’t or don’t want to be represented by any trade union.
So, yes, let’s celebrate the labour movement’s achievements and the role it played and continues to play in shaping T&T.
But let’s also say yes to a balanced and multifaceted look at our labour laws so that we find the right balance between workers’ rights and having a vibrant and job-creating economy.
This balanced view must also apply when looking at state employees’ salaries and work practices.
If we don’t–and perhaps ironically–the cost of populist and ill-thought-through generous salary settlements will end up having to be paid for by the very same tax-paying, hard-working citizens whose needs Government says it is looking after.