JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Trade unions: Ease pressure on workers

by

Andrea Perez-Sobers
297 days ago
20240928

On the eve of this coun­try’s Bud­get pre­sen­ta­tion for fis­cal 2025, some of the ma­jor unions want to see out­stand­ing ne­go­ti­a­tions set­tled in a way that eas­es the fi­nan­cial strain on mid­dle-and low­er-in­come fam­i­lies.

James Lam­bert pres­i­dent gen­er­al of the Na­tion­al Union of Gov­ern­ment and Fed­er­at­ed Work­ers (NUGFW) told Sun­day Busi­ness Guardian that too many poor peo­ple are suf­fer­ing. As a re­sult, the trade union be­lieves that, out­side of the crime sit­u­a­tion which is be­yond con­trol, the Gov­ern­ment has not been fo­cus­ing on the poor class of peo­ple.

A pas­sion­ate James said the Gov­ern­ment could not be think­ing of the ad­vance­ment of the coun­try, and of­fer­ing work­ers four per cent. He is of the view that the ad­min­is­tra­tion can do much bet­ter than it is present­ly do­ing.

Al­so, the vet­er­an union­ist said he is look­ing for­ward to the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the pen­sion plan for dai­ly rat­ed work­ers, which was signed in 1994.

An­oth­er as­pect Lam­bert touched on is the 65 years com­pul­so­ry re­tire­ment age for dai­ly rat­ed work­ers. Back in 1994, it was agreed on prin­ci­ple to re­duce the manda­to­ry re­tire­ment age from 65 to 60, he said.

On the is­sue of the 4 per cent wage of­fer, NUGFW is one of the unions that has not ac­cept­ed the Gov­ern­ment’s of­fer, and an adamant Lam­bert said he has no in­ten­tions of ac­cept­ing it.

“In 2014, 2015, and 2016, you have not con­sol­i­dat­ed CO­LA (cost of liv­ing al­lowance). Ze­ro, ze­ro per cent you’re of­fer­ing for the two years, the two pe­ri­ods. You have brought it to six years. The of­fer­ing now is 4 per cent for six years, when we pre­vi­ous­ly over the years have been ne­go­ti­at­ing on a three-year ba­sis.

“Those peo­ple who have re­tired with the ex­pec­ta­tion that they would have re­ceived an in­crease, we got ab­solute­ly noth­ing be­cause of the non-con­sol­i­da­tion of CO­LA and the ze­ro, ze­ro per­cent­age in­crease that they have of­fered,” Lam­bert stressed.

Shar­ing his per­spec­tive was Trevor John­son, Joint Trade Union Move­ment (JTUM) as­sis­tant gen­er­al sec­re­tary, who said labour is look­ing at the cre­ation of de­cent per­ma­nent jobs, a halt to re­trench­ment and fur­ther clos­ing down of state en­ter­pris­es.

Look­ing at da­ta from the Cen­tral Sta­tis­ti­cal Of­fice (CSO/2023) John­son said it re­veals that there have been in­creas­es across the board in re­al “bread and but­ter” is­sues for the work­ing peo­ple. The cost of ne­ces­si­ties such as food, shel­ter, trans­port, and health have sig­nif­i­cant­ly in­creased.

“While peo­ple face an up­hill strug­gle with an in­crease in food prices of 44.24 per cent, an in­crease in trans­porta­tion of ap­prox­i­mate­ly 43 per cent, shel­ter by 10.21 per cent, and a sig­nif­i­cant in­crease in health­care of 38 per cent.

“The gov­ern­ment needs to ad­dress this and af­ford at least some mea­sure of re­lief for work­ers who are at the low­est end of the eco­nom­ic lad­der. The ex­pen­di­ture side for the av­er­age low- and mid­dle-in­come house­holds has in­creased ex­po­nen­tial­ly while the in­come side main­ly from salaries has stalled,” he de­tailed.

John­son not­ed that the much-tout­ed four per cent which was re­ceived by some work­ers in the pub­lic and state sec­tors, has evap­o­rat­ed even be­fore it reached the house­holds which had to ad­dress out­stand­ing loans, cred­it and util­i­ty bills which piled up from 2014.

“While we are com­ing to the end of 2024, pub­lic ser­vants and many state sec­tor work­ers are still on 2019 col­lec­tive agree­ments but guess what the ex­pen­di­ture side con­tin­ues to rise.”

As it per­tains to the prop­er­ty tax, John­son said JTUM has re­ject­ed this move at this time and has called for its de­fer­ral pend­ing ap­pro­pri­ate con­sul­ta­tion and di­a­logue as work­ers and the av­er­age cit­i­zen con­tin­ue to bear the bur­den of eco­nom­ic ad­just­ment, and ris­ing prices across a whole range of goods and ser­vices.

“The prop­er­ty tax rep­re­sents an un­just fi­nan­cial bur­den and im­po­si­tion which the cit­i­zen­ry can­not bear at this time. The ad­min­is­tra­tion of the prop­er­ty tax has al­so proved to be cum­ber­some and bu­reau­crat­ic and has been plagued with mis­steps and un­cer­tain­ty. The cost of at­tempt­ing to col­lect this tax cer­tain­ly seems to out­weigh any gains an­tic­i­pat­ed from the same,” he added.

Al­so speak­ing on the prop­er­ty tax was Steel Work­ers Union pres­i­dent Tim­o­thy Bai­ley, who ques­tioned the tim­ing of its im­ple­men­ta­tion con­sid­er­ing that work­ers have not re­ceived any sub­stan­tial in­creas­es in salaries over the past decade. He de­scribed it as ill-ad­vised and op­pres­sive.

“Deep­er analy­sis of salaries over this pe­ri­od would show that low-and mid­dle-in­come earn­ers have con­sis­tent­ly lost pur­chas­ing pow­er of their salaries, which is ex­pect­ed with the in­creas­es in goods and ser­vices over the last decade.

“The in­tro­duc­tion of prop­er­ty tax is the in­tro­duc­tion of an ad­di­tion­al bill un­der those cir­cum­stances,” Bai­ley em­pha­sised.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored