He had a lot to prove after having wrested the leadership of the Public Services Association (PAS) from Jennifer Baptiste-Primus, his nemesis, who it seems will not go away. Now, in a new incarnation having jettisoned the veil of political neutrality, her voice echoes on the radio airwaves twisting the sword in Duke's side. She knows that there are mutinous elements embedded in the hierarchy of the PSA who will be happy to place a banana peel in front of the marching feet of the victorious executive. Duke did not even have an opportunity to savour the hard-fought win at the PSA election, the cool breeze of his PSA beamer; he was sent directly to the front to stave off a concerted attack by the previous administration calculated to disperse public workers through the creation of the Trini-dad and Tobago Revenue Authority.
He was on every morning programme frothing at the prospect of public servants having to reapply for their jobs in this new entity. With heady fervour he ex- horted workers to scratch their buttocks instead of working. At the time I laughed quietly to myself (that's "lqtm" for the bbm posse) that if public servants scratched their behinds more than is normal, Zentel would be flying off the shelves in pharmacies across the land. In the end, it was a change of government that would save the PSA; the Revenue Authority would surely have been the death knell of the association. Emboldened by the reprieve offered by Patrick Manning's ouster, Duke decided on a shorter honeymoon period than anticipated by the Government and issued a call to war. Whether it was hubris or gambler's gut, he led the executive into what amounted to a pre-emptive strike.
Now he has been criticised by other trade unionists for having exhausted his arsenal too soon, effectively squandering his bargaining power. It, however, must be patently clear by now that there is no room for negotiation here. The Government is standing firm on five per cent, regardless of who you ask so there is really no reason for the Chief Personnel Officer to be involved in the "process" at all. From my reading of it, Duke's salvos against the Government were quite weak. The impact of coordinated absenteeism and marches was an almost inaudible thud. On hearing of the PSA's capitulation, some labour leaders openly condemned Duke. It is a fact, however, that I am fairly certain will be supported by the news archives that the other labour unions were very slow to rally to the PSA's call. Perhaps they assumed that with their comrade Errol McLeod in office, wage negotiations would be a walk-through. The irony is the unions were probably brought into the partnership to render them "more reasonable." After all, "we is pardners! We in dis togedder!"
By the time the "neighbour house on fire" ethos had set in, Duke was already in the grip of a handshake awkwardly executed by Finance Minister Winston Dookeran, now ecstatic at having dispatched one minor imp so that he could concentrate on the Clico leviathan. There are some very real problems here on both sides. The Government is running a deficit budget for a third year straight and, notwithstanding the various oil and gas projects that may be in the offing, the realisation of any benefits could be at least 10 years off.
Michael Anisette, who has miraculously emerged from the Udecott debacle completely unscathed, peppered me with statistics which he claims to have gleaned from energy expert Gregory McGuire pointing to purported revenue windfalls from spiking oil prices.
I am not going to get into a debate about that because experts often differ on the impact of such increases, particularly in light of our low oil production. After I tried to engage him in a debate about those statistics, he then told me that economics is not about stats, it is about people. Guess that means there are a lot of economists out there who are actually anthropologists. At any rate, there is an inherent flaw in trumpeting buoyant oil prices as a justification for accession to wage demands. When oil fortunes wane, the country is saddled with unsustainable wages and insatiable demands for steady upward adjustments, irrespective of the performance of the economy. This is the vicious cycle that our oil addiction has engendered. We will forever be locked in a tri-annual duel with the unions either threatening to or actually shutting down the country in a bid to force the Government to pay workers more money.
Let's face it, unions exist for the sole purpose of battling for increased wages but, in an economy where those wages are constantly undermined by ever rising food prices and cost of living, what is the end game? Is it the successive posturing then voting out of recalcitrant, "anti-worker" governments until the sun goes supernova and all life ceases to exist? I am particularly enamoured of the shift system as outlined by former labour leader Robert Guiseppi: 7 am-2 pm and 2 pm-9 pm; this would allow public workers the option of attending a second job during the day (it needn't be a full shift) or possibly attend studies at university. Just think of how many people we know who work in the public service and, because of their inadequate salary, run a catering business on the side or a parlour, perhaps do people's taxes, drive a taxi...pick one.
The problem with that concept is it is difficult enough to get Trinis to do one job and the unions' philosophy has always been that you should not have to work two jobs and that it is the responsibility of the State to house your unplanned family, educate your children , give you free healthcare and fulfil all of your wildest dreams. In other countries, it is the norm for people to hold down two, sometimes three jobs. I currently work at three jobs, including the operation of my fledgling business. It is not something I imagine doing for the rest of my life but right now that's how I keep off the cat food. There are many teachers in our society who, to boost their income, give lessons after class or during the vacation. The point is when the finite nature of oil confronts this country and there is no more state largesse to meet these wage demands, can you imagine what will become of this place?
Ultimately, unions do not care about economic problems and the inability of the State to pay because their members are not interested. Indeed, the more difficult the economic circumstances, the more aggressive unions are expected to be. The NAR learned that the hard way. What we need is a creative, new approach to gauging worker performance and compensation for work delivered. I can imagine the union's response to that now, "We all fuh dat! Right after we get we money!" We cannot ignore that there are many hardworking people in this country who are woefully underpaid. Attending to them, however, must be balanced with our propensity to pay people simply because they exist.