In March 2021, the three labour umbrella groups joined forces to walk away from NTAC, the National Tripartite Advisory Council created to bring together business, government and trade unions to discuss employment and industrial relations matters.
They never returned to the table.
The effective demise of NTAC due to the withdrawal of one of the parties has been a major missed opportunity to pave the way towards improved industrial relations and employment growth in T&T.
Hopefully, whoever wins the next general election will seek to bring it back in some way or another so that these opportunities aren’t lost forever.
The fact is that T&T desperately needs a serious forum–devoid of cheap politics or even cheaper populist grandstanding–if it is to have the kind of labour laws and industrial relations climate required to ensure there is growth and prosperity for all.
Especially at times of global uncertainty triggered by conflicts, global geopolitical reorganisation and, more recently, a new wave of protectionism kicked off by the world’s largest economy, it is essential that we have an economy that is truly dynamic so that we can also flex when the world around us flexes (for better or for worse).
To make this work, we need labour laws that give more employment flexibility. As we saw during the pandemic, ours are so rigid that even the urgent need for people to work from home was potentially hindered by the current, highly prescriptive legislation.
So much so that our public sector is yet to have an agreed policy on remote working, even though the world is now moving in the other direction, with many businesses instructing their staff to fully return to the office. In essence, we need to find the right balance between a kind of ‘bill of rights’ for employees across the country (represented by trade unions or not) to ensure a more flexible workforce doesn’t equal a race to the bottom, with the kind of protections and guarantees that any decent society ought to grant to its citizens.
But, at the same time, we need to ensure that employers can adapt and adjust as conditions require, responding to society’s needs and ensuring the operations remain viable, thus also ensuring longer-term employment for as many people as possible.
This flexibility can be good for all sides, also helping those who want or need more flexible working hours and conditions, which in turn could help tackle the worrying trend towards people altogether quitting the jobs market.
Although well-meaning, countries where laws make staff movement difficult tend to have higher unemployment or a culture of short-term contracts because, once someone is hired, it is very hard to shrink the workforce, even when the business is at risk.
Spain has some of these laws, which no doubt contributed to high levels of youth unemployment, especially during recessions.
But Spain is also a great example of how dialogue between parties can turn things around when it developed a social pact to help with its economic resurgence as it emerged from the totalitarian Franco regime.nIt is clear something must change. Dialogue will be key for that to happen. Once the election is over, whichever party is in power ought to try and create a new forum.
For it to work, the Government of the day will need to clearly demonstrate a determination to implement the deeper changes our current labour laws so desperately need. And it must go beyond the legislation itself–we need to change the mindset of our industrial relations to one that is more collaborative and less adversarial, whilst acknowledging the parties won’t always agree on everything.
With that, a new NTAC-like body must have clearer and stronger terms of reference, together with well-understood deliverables and timelines, or it risks being just another talking shop. As suggested here before, and given the importance of the matter, this new body should be chaired by the Prime Minister of the day, whoever that person might be.
And such a body must also be more representative. Yes, trade unions remain an important part of our industrial relations landscape, and they are representative of a segment of the population. And, yes, they are also part of the country’s political landscape, even if, sometimes, what they do may go against the law.
But no, they are not the only ones who speak for employees or would-be employees. Quite the contrary–the reality is that the labour movement does not directly represent a considerable portion of the country’s workforce (with a total membership even smaller).
So, a future advisory group dealing with employment matters must seek to expand the representation from an employee’s perspective.
For instance, NGOs or similar bodies that can speak with authority about labour and employment matters could be good additions to the group.
The same can be argued for employers–the main business chambers play a major role in representing business views and should be there, but they are associations that may not encompass every part of the economy.
And when it comes to the digital world, it is essential that the body has people who can understand the needs of this sector and the opportunities it can bring to T&T, whilst also tapping into the perspectives that entrepreneurs and start-up owners can bring to the table. None of this means the trade unions aren’t welcome–they ought to be around the same table discussing and (hopefully) agreeing on employment matters.
But it must also be made clear to them that failure to turn up equals an active decision to abstain from engaging with these much-needed reforms that must go ahead, with or without them.
A new government, with a fresh mandate, will have a fantastic opportunity to reset the way we, first, get together to find solutions and, then, implement the kind of labour reforms that will positively transform the economy for generations to come.