have to grasp fully to deliver transformative results. One of the benchmarks in gauging whether or not such connection is being met is viewing the general welfare of workers at large. The government’s posture toward labor vis-à-vis its policies, directly and indirectly, impacting the welfare of workers is central. The plight of workers for a fair and living wage, job security, proper working conditions, and pension and gratuity represents by and large the welfare of the nation.
programmes which led to the social development of Grenada during the revolutionary period: 1979 – 1983. We are speaking of another graduate of the Presentation Brothers College: Maurice Bishop. Maurice Bishop, too, possessed great personal effect as an individual and as a political leader. He relished rolling up his sleeves, when he was not wearing shot sleeve which he donned a lot as prime minister, to partake in whatever task others were engaged in around the island, as he would have donated his time and resources to represent the downtrodden in legal matters prior to taking the helm as leader of government. The dynamic that serves to contrast these two leaders, as alluded to earlier, is their understanding of the social needs of the people. That is the criteria or juncture where divergent ideologies seem to explain the difference in approach to leadership by these two individuals. Laying attribute to a particular ideology certainly aids our understanding of an apparent difference in governance approach, but it would make much better sense should we examine closely the orientations of these two individuals that convey whether or not a proper connection is made with the social needs of the Grenadian people, of which they would
It would appear more obvious now than previously where the Mitchell administration stands on the question of the welfare for a broad cross-section of workers, given the administration’s handling of the lingering pension and gratuity issue affecting teachers and other civil servants. The government would have “promised” the unions representing those civil servants 25 percent on the heels of the last general elections, only to turn around and renege on such promise to offer a paltry 2 percent, purporting to not be in a position to afford the original 25 percent, which according to union representatives is the law. The commentary on the part of the government is that The Fiscal Responsibility Act, to which the government must adhere, does not facilitate the fiscal room for awarding workers such generous retirement package. And in more recent weeks, after the issue was brought to the court in a class action lawsuit for redress and still pending a ruling, the government indicated that it has plans to enhance the retirement packages for all government workers (not just public officers). It appears that the government’s intent is to pit workers against each other in the process, because it has yet to make amends with the classification of workers, public officers, who aired their grievance in the first instance pertaining to their retirement package. Why wait until the matter goes to the court, and pending a ruling, to decide to speak about enhancing the retirement package of all civil servants, especially when affordability was the focal point and seems to remain the focal point, given the emphasis that has been placed on it during the negotiation talks with union representatives? Could it be that the stubbornness of the unions to press the issue and to garner wide support as they engaged in industrial actions
has put the government on the fence, as it has no alternative left but heighten its propaganda that those workers are being dishonest and greedy with their interpretation or definition of gratuity, to not see it as an up-front loan? Mind you, the issue of pension and gratuity was brought to a head when an earlier (1998) OECS Court of Appeals’ ruling stipulated that government affords the plaintiff, Irwin McQueen, pension compensation to reflect the law as it appeared prior to the People’s Revolutionary Government Pension Disqualification Act of 1985, since Section 84[8] of such law is inconsistent with the Constitution (which was suspended under the PRG government and restored thereafter). Such decision by the court obviously has wide implications, to include all public officers, not just the plaintiff in this case. Keep in mind that the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), the other fixture in this domain, was intended by the PRG to nullify the adherence to the obvious class division with respect to workers, including politicians who served in government, which by the way was sidestepped when an earlier NNP Administration, in 1989, contravened the PRG’s Pension Disqualification Act of 1985, to ensure that politicians receive pension and gratuity after four years in office. There is no earnest indication that the Mitchell government is intending to undo the class division and thus corresponding privileges consequently afforded in the process, with mentioning an increase or enhancement in pension for all civil servants, even at this stage. Moreover, the initial claim that the public officers are being greedy or fool-headed with wanting and demanding 25 percent only echoes the reality on the ground, that the great majority of civil servants in Grenada would be retiring with very little monetary benefits to sustain a modest sense of wellbeing when they have mortgages and other expenses to honor on an ongoing basis. But how does such charge by the government relate to its decision to take on many of the new hires of nurses in the public health sector on a part-time basis without the fringe benefits that full-time workers are entitled to? And would such practice not only affect those young nurses seeking to practice their profession and make a livelihood but negatively impact the overall delivery of health service, in spite other changes that might be positive to that sector? Does the Mitchell government really have the workers’ welfare at heart? Should the answer to the question turn out to be no, why would the workers of the State of Grenada not be top priority for the current government? To VISION MAGAZINE
14
