Government and the trade unions have reached a "lose-lose" juncture and what is now taking place is "robber talk" on both sides. So contends Labor and Industrial Relations Specialist Robert Giuseppi, former head of the National Union of Government and Federated Workers' Union (NUGFW) and the National Trade Union Centre. Giuseppi, vice-president of the Washington-based Advisory Council, Department of Social Development and Employment of the OAS, stresses there must be continued dialogue if an amicable settlement is to be reached to bring the impasse to an end. He slams any talk of blaming PSA's President Watson Duke for the ongoing imbroglio as the most nonsensical thing he has ever heard.
Q: Mr Giuseppi, I am reliably informed that you are advising the trade unions on strategies they are adopting in the current industrial impasse with the Government?
A: (In the living room of his Upper Belmont Valley Road, home, Thursday afternoon) That information is not so reliable.
Q: Partially reliable?
I do not advise any trade unionists given the climate of industrial relations at this time and depending on the news items I would read or view on the media. I would call up some of them and point out where they were right or where they are going wrong.
Q: From your more than 40 years experience in the trade union movement-during which you occupied the highest positions-are you convinced the leaders are pursuing the correct tactics in this "war" with repeated threats of shutting down the country etc?
(Casually dressed in short pants and white T-shirt) I think both parties are to share some of the blame for what is happening. I will not take a side at this time except the one that speaks about honouring the collective bargaining process and good industrial relations practices.
Q: Seeing that you are dodging the question, let me put it more directly: If you were in the unions' position would you threaten havoc and mayhem by promising to shut down the country...yes or no?
(Firmly) It would not have reached this stage.
Q: How come?
Because they (trade union leaders) made some mistakes up front and have found themselves with their backs against the wall.
Q: Briefly, what were some of these mistakes?
Well in 2004, we (NUGFW of which Giuseppi was the president) had a similar dispute with a company in the private sector and we went to the Industrial Court. Our arguments stood up and we got more than what the company was offering the workers.
Q: Mr Giuseppi, one of the main contentious points in this impasse is the word "cap", which the union is accusing Government of placing on salaries to be offered by companies in the public sector. Do the unions have a valid case for saying there is or was a cap?
Under our industrial relations laws Government is unable to put on such a cap just like that. The only time there was a cap downward was during the NAR administration when there was a ten per cent cut inflicted on the public sector, but Government had to go to the Parliament to get that measure passed.
One thing the people must ask the unions involved is how come they did not see it fit to kick in provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, which clearly spell out how a dispute could be handled at the level of the Labour Ministry and the Industrial Court with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement. This is more galling when one considers it is more than four years old.
Q: Are you saying that if the unions had resorted to those measures they would not have been in this untenable situation today?
I am saying it would have been solved long ago and for all the bake and shark at Maracas Bay, or the "doubles" and saheena in Debe, I don't know why they did not do so. The entire process is set out in the IRA under the section which deals with when the collective bargaining process has reached a stalemate. I want to believe that as seasoned trade unionists they must be aware of these provisions.
Another thing, too, Clevon, if they wanted to take industrial action or strike they could have done so legally.
Q: So that if they should embark on their threat to shut down the country and what have you, they would be in violation of the IRA provisions?
It will be contrary to the IRA, but I imagine because of the IRA provisions they cannot announce a strike but they could find creative means of achieving that end in the same way that the PSA's President Watson Duke implemented certain strategies to achieve his ends during his battle with the Government. Remember he spoke of two days public servants falling sick, health and safety situations not up to mark at certain Government departments and so on... (mischievous smile).
Q: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is convinced that there won't be a national strike given the fact that certain public sector workers have already settled their salary negotiations. This morning the OWTU's bossman Ancil Roget countered she would be surprised if and when the unions should implement their threat?
Clevon, both sides would suffer if it should get to that sorry stage. They have reached a lose-lose position because they are not engaging in the collective bargaining process...they are carrying on with that nonsense (frowning).
Q: Mr Giuseppi, if you were to advise the unions today what their next course of action should be, what would that be?
I would advise them to dialogue. There could only be agreement when we talk. WASA did it and they were able to solve their problem.
Q: And if you were to advise the Government?
The way forward for the Government is to stop disrespecting the collective bargaining process as the leaders have claimed they
are doing. It must be seriously taken by both sides, there is no question about that. In fact, both sides have disrespected the process.
And Clevon, you know something? One vital element is missing in this whole imbroglio...
Q: Which is?
(Folding his arms across his chest) Clevon, as a senior media personnel do you know what's the unions' position on the wages issue? Don't look at me so perplexed. Not even you can say. We know what they do NOT want, right? Therefore, this opportunity that the Prime Minister gave them was a good one to let the public know what they want by way of wages; although we know that she cannot negotiate with the movement, which they failed to grasp.
(Wildly gesticulating with both hands) What the unions are doing right now is carrying on with the politics of industrial relations.
Q: Towards what end?
They are carrying on with the politics of industrial relations, economic politics and social politics to get the support of the public. If they are to hurt the public in anyway (via their threat to shut down the country), the people would understand why they took that action. Whether this would work with the public is a question that they must seriously ponder. The unions have not told us how much money that five per cent represents, they have given us no information yet, they are seeking the assistance of the public.
Q: If the unions should implement their threat, who would suffer most at the end of the day-the Government, the unions or the people?
If there is a settlement, no damage...if there is no settlement, there will be some damage.
Q: I might be wrong, but there appears to be a lot of bad blood flowing on both sides. Do you think that there could ever be a return to good?
(Interrupting) No Clevon, I wouldn't say bad blood; I call it the usual industrial relations robber talk. Suddenly, Comrade Roget felt he was so insulted by a little picong from Dr Moonilal about wine to the side, which I term a little good old Trini "fatigue". Real professional negotiators do not take on those kinds of jocular remarks. To me, placing emphasis on these light remarks is just a "gallery" thing.
Q: Mr Giuseppi, the leaders are also claiming that they were betrayed by the PP Government in that they supported the Partnership during the 2007 election campaign. Is there any justification for this charge?
They put themselves in that position. Imagine you have such an experienced trade unionist in the Cabinet (Labour Minister Errol McLeod) and you have not yet kicked in the IRA provisions where the Minister has a part to play in this regard. I am hearing some stupid talk that he cannot do that because it would be a conflict of interest. Nonsense! The Labour Minister has a role to play and that is all, it has nothing to do with Errol McLeod but everything to do with the Minister of Labour.