Last Monday the OWTU strike at Petrotrin was called off at 4 pm, the workers having walked off the job at around 10 am that same day. The record-breaking six-hour strike ended when an agreement was reached between the union and Petrotrin whereby, in relation to the 2011-2014 bargaining period, Petrotrin agreed to an interim measure of a five-per-cent wage increase for the first two years in that period, although some reports suggested it was a three-per-cent increase for the first year and a two-per-cent increase in the second year.
In any event, the increase takes effect immediately placing a greater burden on the already cash-strapped company which is wholly owned by the State.
This ended a confusing saga that began late last year when the union indicated that it would serve formal strike notice in January. Previously, the PP administration had offered 0-0-0–ie, nothing for the three year 2011-2014 period, a decision that ended up in the Industrial Court for conciliation and determination. It is unclear whether the strike notice was served because of a breakdown in that conciliation, or a breakdown in discussions for the 2014-2017 bargaining period where the present administration, like its predecessor, offered nothing again–ie, 0-0-0.
It was equally unclear who was supposed to be bargaining with the OWTU. Was it Petrotrin or Central Government? Dubiously, Minister Young made it clear that it was for the Government not Petrotrin to make any offer, contrary to the general view that it was for Petrotrin with the Government's approval to negotiate. This action, like so many in the first year of PNM rule, once again eerily echoed the political machinations of the PP when they were in government, and who now find themselves once again paralysed by their own history unable to make any valuable contribution as an effective opposition.
How can the PP Opposition, who offered nothing when its government, enjoying high oil prices, was sufficiently flush with money to pay billions of dollars for a segment of highway in cash, castigate the present administration for its exact response during this guava season? Not surprisingly, with the tables turned, both sides changed their tunes and lambasted the other in Parliament, with not a care in the world for the real issue at hand, instead, only trying to gain frivolous political points. Let us not forget not long ago, the OWTU was seen by the PP government as the enemy for its incessant chiding of that administration for corruption, and was painted by the PP as "PNM", with the then PNM opposition happy to align with the OWTU. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but how long can we continue to practise this kind of politics and hope to move our country forward?
Equally interesting, as in the case of FATCA, was the widespread condemnation by the private sector of any action contrary to its interest. This trend, in a country with a widening disparity between the haves and have nots, is unfortunate. Yes, the attempt by Petrotrin to paint its workers as ingrates–eg, a cleaner getting $10,000 a month–succeeded in part, but was it for the people who earn that in an hour or spend it on refreshments on an executive frolic to complain? The unfortunate reality is, we can expect more of this as the economy declines because the profiteers will make every effort to disparage the attempts by the working man to improve his lot.
And let us not forget the huge increases approved by the PP appointed Petrotrin chairman to senior managers allegedly without the approval of the inter ministerial committee. Or the Gas to Liquids fiasco, and the abandoned construction after it began of the new Petrotrin head office, both PNM legacies with billions wasted. Which begs the question, why is it so difficult for governments to be honest and transparent with the workers and the general public? To date, no one knows the true state of the economy–do they have the money or don't they? Perhaps we will never know, what I do know is, this approach does nothing more than fuel the growing distrust and disconnect between the people and the Government.
On the issue of leadership, like the previous administration, as soon as the going got tough, it was the government that caved and the taxpayer who will ultimately pay. The Rowley administration is shown again to have bark but no bite, a habit of sending mixed and confusing signals suggesting a misunderstanding and even ignorance of its powers and obligations and, sadly, a lack of leadership. And if all of this was, as some cynics suggest, some kind of theatre by both the union and the Government to accept savage restructuring of the broken state enterprise to come, our citizens didn't fall for the brinkmanship and shenanigans by not panic buying. Never underestimate the wisdom of the people.
?Mickela Panday