Working class needs protection

THE EDITOR: THE corporate citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and indeed, across the world, have long faced accusations of a loss of social conscience and a leave of social responsibility on their part. In the face of such claims, many companies have over the years undertaken various public relations strategies to promote a corporate image that has a human face and human understanding. Sponsoring children's cricket, community building and related activities, scholarships and so on are quite commendable and companies that have accepted that sense of cooperation and co-dependence with people and communities deserve praise for taking steps in the right direction.

In fact, companies that have adopted those approaches can be seen to have much happier and committed employees as those strategies translate most times to improved employee relations policies. But there are still many companies and employers that simply cannot grasp the concept of social conscience. A television news report on the shortage of sugar for soft drink manufacturers and the response of at least one company serves to very clearly prove that. Solo official, Hayden Charles, was on television some nights ago talking about the sudden constraints experienced by his company because of an interrupted sugar supply. One of the major claims he made was that the company would have to send workers home for some weeks until there was regularisation in supply. Even if Solo received permission to import sugar, it would take some weeks and until then, workers would have to be sent home.

While one would need to understand the position of the company, one also needs to understand the predicament of the workers. The workers had nothing to do with the predicament of the company. In the absence of complaints, one can assume that they were working well and doing their best in the interest of the company. Their needs do not stop because of a setback at the company. They need to buy food, send their children to school, service monthly hire purchase and mortgage payments and pay for utilities. Daily expenses also continue. And especially in the light of this being a temporary situation, it would have been fair for the company to ensure that the workers were not just sent home with nothing.

There are some who would quickly jump to the conclusion that workers should not be paid for nothing. But therein lies the argument that companies have lost any sense of understanding for the people who drive the profitability of companies. Many workers live month to month and dedicate 100 percent of their energy to the well being of the organisation. Any lapse in monthly salary can very harshly affect their ability to keep it all together. That is a reality. There are also those who would attempt to portray a company locked in a tight position with a fall in output — it would be difficult to service salaries. Really, if a company is operating in such a manner where it is immediately affected by temporary setbacks, then the problem lies in executive administration and management and workers must be protected from having to pay for that. Companies and employers with a conscience and understanding of the way the working class and even some middle class people survive will ensure that every avenue is pursued in the interest of the worker before a harsh measure is taken.

Even if it means percentages of salaries are paid based on years of service to the company or some other fair measure. But under no circumstances should a worker, committed to the company and working towards company goals, be sent home with nothing. It is just not right to treat workers in such a way. For those who would care only for the clinical or academic view, it is there in management theory too — a company with a workforce that feels a sense of security of tenure and confidence that the company will look after worker interests as the worker looks after the company interests will experience much higher levels of productivity and efficiency. Company gains can come in the form of less wastage, fewer man hours lost to illness and a far better public image. But the main question here is, if companies can be allowed to take actions such as these, is the legislative framework governing workers’ protection and rights in need to an overhaul. Do we need to revisit labour laws?

Roger D Ramcharitar
rogerdr24@yahoo.com