Dawning of the FITUN

This year’s Labour Day was, by all accounts, a success. The announcement of the formation of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions and NGOs (FITUN) clearly energised many to come out, calls for unity notwithstanding. It is the view of FITUN that trade union unity is a necessary and desirable objective, but unity is not an abstraction. Unity does not mean that “all ah we is one”, just because we are trade unions. Unity cannot be merely cosmetic with everybody sharing the same platform or even belonging to one umbrella organisation.

Unity must be built around agreed upon policy positions on key issues and a commitment to work to achieve a common programme of activity and struggle together to win shared objectives. In addition, if there is one organisation it must be democratic with every member having an equal voice. It must be a modern umbrella with clearly assigned responsibility given to each member of the Executive and having proper mechanisms of discipline and dispute resolution. None of these existed in the NATUC and we were all guilty of not ensuring that after its formation in 1991 the flesh was put on what was really just the skeleton of a unified trade union body. As a consequence the differences that obviously exist within the movement and between unions not only continued, but under the conditions of the Panday UNC which openly sought to influence (many would say control) the movement, the differences became serious contradictions that could no longer be contained. The split was therefore inevitable. It must be noted that in 1999, when it had become obvious that the divisions were about to break-up NATUC, Errol McLeod, as President of the organisation, proposed that the leadership focus its attention on developing policy positions on the key issues as well as establish mechanisms that would address the fundamental differences that existed. His call was rejected by the majority of those who now are in ‘NATUC’. That is why that organisation has not reformed itself and still operates on the old bases.

In our development of FITUN we have made a conscious effort to create a new “best practice” for a labour umbrella. Thus we have determined that every member organisation will have an equal voice and vote, regardless of size, thus removing the old style of larger unions having more weight by virtue of more voting delegates. Our approach will counter the tradition of ‘big union chauvinism’ that the old system actively fostered. We have also put great importance on the development of common policy positions so that around these positions we can build a programme of acting involving all, regardless of the party loyalties, affiliations or sympathies of the leaders. In this way we hope to maintain a clearly “independent” position, challenging whichever government may be in office, based on our consistent actions on policies that do not change depending on who occupies Whitehall. FITUN also has, by deliberate policy, sought to include those sections of the mass or social movement that are not in trade unions. In the 1930’s the trade union movement and the labour movement were virtually the same, given that when the workers were mobilised the entire community was simultaneously organised into action. Today that is not the case. The mass movement is comprised of workers, communities, women, youth and other key groupings. But all of these sectors have very similar problems and, with the implementation of first structural adjustment and now neo-liberal policies, the problems that the majority of the population face have the same root.

In order to develop a struggle against these policies — be it the FTAA or the equitable distribution of our gas and oil wealth — it is necessary that all sectors are brought together. In the first place this bringing of different sectors into a single umbrella organisation enables a sharing of perspectives so that, for example, youth can better understand trade union issues or trade unions can appreciate the travails of those who are differently abled. This enriches the policy positions that are developed as well as laying the conditions for the building of wider solidarity. Thus community problems can be joined by workers, and vice-versa, as is now the case with the battle against Atlantic LNG Train IV. FITUN therefore is an important development and will, if we do the work, lead the charge against neo-liberalism in the country. It is hoped that others, rather than feel threatened will see the wisdom of our approach and seek to join. One of the significant outcomes of the strategy of linking trade unions with NGOs is the new relationship that has emerged with the organisations that represent the differently abled. They were central to the June 19 activities in Fyzabad as they truly deserved to be. Their struggle is really a struggle for dignity and for basic rights. In this regard their struggles very much reflect those of the workers of the 1930’s. Last week I interviewed E R Blades, a veteran of that period, and he clearly stated that workers were subjected to terrible indignities in the pre-June 19, 1937 period. He gave several graphic anecdotal accounts of such indignities and the fact that they were fighting for not just better wages and conditions of work , or for their rights — be they political or social, they were fighting for their dignity as human beings, no less equal than any other.

Today that struggle is not finished as the plight of the differently abled demonstrates. Then too there is the fact that so many in our society live below the poverty line, in a land of plenty. The ILO’s call for decent jobs is most applicable to Trinidad and Tobago with casual, temporary and contract workers being exploited on a daily basis, as are the workers in the security sector and in most of the service sector. We have therefore committed ourselves to campaign for “Jobs (for the jobless), Decent Jobs (for those who are working under terms and conditions that are unacceptable) and Job Security (or sustainable incomes) for All”. Given the reality of today’s Trinidad and Tobago there is clearly a need for a labour movement that addresses all the many issues affecting working people and the poor. The large numbers that gathered in Fyzabad on June 19 and the spirit of commitment to struggle for a society built on the principles of “peace, bread and justice” for all bore testimony to that need.