Unions knock wage restraint talk

He alleged that Imbert is “out of order” and “out of his depth” and called for Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley to meet the unions, whose heads held a news briefing at NUGFW Hall, Port-of- Spain.

Calling Imbert’s statement “outrageous” and “anti-worker”, Lambert accused the Government of exaggerating TT’s economic woes, remarking, “It is not as bad as they are purporting it to be.” Lambert said the Government had ignored the plight of daily-paid State workers, especially over a lack of pensions and an uncertain retirement age.

He rejected the idea of some workers getting a ten percent wage hike while others face no increase, saying, “What’s good for one must be good for all.” Public Services Association head, Watson Duke, said he would not consider any wage suppression — by whatever name, whether “freeze” or “restraint” — unless the Government also imposed a freeze on costs, by establishing the Rent Assessment Board and the Price Control Board. “If you (Government) apply an indexed COLA (cost of living allowance) we could consider a wage freeze,” Duke added.

Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union head, Michael Annisette, said Imbert’s statement was a violation of the International Labour Organisation’s convention on collective bargaining, and a violation of TT’s Industrial Relations Act, the latter which sets out a procedure to follow for collective bargaining.

He said Imbert’s remarks now leave TT in a potentially explosive situation.

Challenging Imbert’s claim that his zero percent offer constituted a wage restraint, Annisette said that wage restraint is defined as when rival parties sit down together to talk things through, such as finding ways to add side items such as healthcare and housing. “All these things should be left around the negotiating table,” he said. “When you place things in the public domain, it interferes with the industrial relations landscape.”