Two interesting type ads appeared in the Saturday news of October 13. Of the first, two were of a similar kind of which the first was about a new "state-owned petroleum company" of which the keywords were "sustainably" and "profitably", "positive returns" and "viable future" and the other, another state-owned company intended to "facilitate the reliable importation and trading of petroleum products", both against a background of red and orange signalling a bright future.
This pair of ads was pitted against another two, the first of a mother, sombre, sad, and forlorn looking of which the key words were "duty to children" and "taken away", “betrayed” and” hope fading” and the other in this category, of a retiree, equally sad and forlorn-looking, wondering at the fate of the young “who saw their future in the national icon called Petrotrin”, both, in contrast to flaming red and orange of the first two, against a background of darkness and grey, pointing to a future equally so.
These two scenarios seem diametrically opposed, the latter suggesting impending death and eventual extinction and the former, life and growth as its replacement. But should they have been at opposite ends when like in nature, that surging growth often arises from debris and decay, or like the Phoenix, rising out of the ashes? To be sure, the economics of it all speaks of no growth, of no viability, of no profit, only loss, but its advocates can only speak of such because it's the only language they know since "profit" is their god, their "be-all and end-all" of everything.
But what of the human factor which corporate has a way of harping about? For them, it seems that the human resource is only useful when it serves their efforts to maximise profits, and becomes easily dispensable once that principal objective is jeopardised as in Petrotrin's case. There is no human factor outside the idea of maximum profit and the uncompromising language of the Board suggests that, and soon to be dismissed workers can scream to doomsday as in the Sunday newspaper of October 14, of the insufficiency of the severance package and the current danger it poses to mortgages, to the education of siblings, even to the demands of everyday living, inter alia, the company would hear, but the Board won't listen to their cries!
But couldn't there have been a compromise instead of absolute death and destruction, eliminating the corruption and wastage, retaining required personnel to operationalise existing structure, and for those who must go, a fair package with a commitment to establish the links for future employment as applicable? But you must be humane and visionary to be so enlightened in your approach to a problem like Petrotrin. For the Board, the latter must go together with Roget and his clan and in its place, a new regime tailored to suit profitability and sustainability and the interests of a few who have the money to invest in the new venture. The rest who served the company through the years, like Boxer in Orwell's Animal Farm, must now be sent to the knackers, now that they have become useless and are no longer required. So the wheel of "progress" will continue to churn the world over with the haves controlling the cogs and the have-nots churned into extinction in the process!
Dr Errol N Benjamin