What’s the point?

Therefore, workers are entitled to express their views, lawfully and through non-violent means. But what is the point of a strike that is potentially disruptive and that seems to only send a message everyone has already received? We seriously question what will be achieved by the reported plan for a national strike on August 4.

No one disagrees when it comes to worker conditions in Trinidad and Tobago.

More needs to be done to ensure appropriate levels of pay as well as pay equality between men and women. Though strides have been made in the regulation of worker safety, more needs to be done to continue to push standards forward.Some of these matters call for political will and the enforcement of best practices. For instance, pay parity will become a reality if organisations that enforce anti-discrimination laws are given adequate resources and the appropriate, updated legislative backing needed for them to function as vibrant, relevant watchdogs within modern life.

But the plight of workers cannot be improved if companies are not healthy in the long run. Hence, economic conditions, nationally and internationally, must be part of the equation when it comes to discourse on industrial relations.

Therefore, we agree with the call being made by organisations such as the Employers Consultative Association (ECA) in relation to the planned August 4 strike.

According to the ECA, “a shutdown of any kind, even for a short period, will further affect TT’s ability to survive and compete on the global stage.

Each day of economic earnings that is lost will inevitably have ripple effects including loss of revenue for companies, taxation income for Government, and continued job losses.” Protest action gets attention in the short run, but often at the expense of progress in the long run. An unstable industrial environment is not necessarily a signal that workers’ rights are being vigilantly protected. Rather, it can become a risk factor that must be taken into account when courting business and much-needed foreign investment.

There is no question that the high level of worker retrenchment is a matter of serious concern.

Trade unions argue, persuasively, that the small man is being made to pay for the failure of companies and the State to restructure the economy in a way that ensures sustainable income streams and, therefore, secure jobs. While some high-ranking executives have taken cuts in pay across the private and public sectors, they at least have kept their jobs. Which cannot be said of thousands of lower-level workers who have been sent home.

But the issue of retrenchment intersects with two issues: the moral obligations of upper management and those in power in Government and the current state of the world economy. Because there is failure to significantly diversify the economy, the current retrenchments have been inevitable.

This matter will not be solved overnight or during one day’s protest action.

Workers are entitled to express their grievances. But just as employers and the State have obligations due to the power they yield, so too do workers have a duty to act in good faith and to ensure they do not do more harm than good when exercising their rights.

Even if nobody was getting the message, there are other ways to get that message across without disrupting productivity and imperiling the very revenue stream needed to sustain jobs in the long run.

None of this means the State is off the hook. It, too, must do far better when it comes to its industrial relations policy. The collapse of the tripartite mechanism has done tremendous harm to the State’s own moral authority. It must work to rectify this as workers, too, should work come August 4.