CALL?IT?WHAT?YOU?MAY – wage freeze, moratorium, or the more euphemistic restraint or fiscal discipline – the end result is the same: poorer purchasing power if everyday prices keep rising.
Sometime in January last year when the F-word (“freeze”, that is) was sounded by then Minister of Economic Affairs David Estwick, the hackles of the trade unions rose. Ears turned toward Prime Minister and Minister of Finance David Thompson for clarification.
Not too long after, Mr Thompson was explaining that any “slight increase” in the wage bill would have serious implications.
“It means,” the Prime Minister said then, “we’ll have to look [to] . . . cutting expenditure in other areas, particularly our social programmes, which would be undesirable.”
Heated debate and presentations of disagreement by some of Barbados’ most influential players, including the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados (CTUSAB), the Private Sector Association, the Barbados Hotel & Tourism Association and the Central Bank of Barbados, were well ventilated.
To appease CTUSAB and the many concerned members of the working populace who vented on the radio call-in programmes, Mr Thompson would seek to have “banished” from the Barbadian vocabulary that frustrating F-word: “freeze” – wage freeze. And along with it would go “moratorium”.
Mr Thompson too would promise that there would be absolutely no attempts to circumvent the collective bargaining process. Any “restraint” would be at the bargaining table, for the workers have “a right to make their impact”.
Sir Roy would be reasonably satisfied that Barbadians would not be introduced to any draconian measures of the International Monetary Fund “through the back door”.
Today, the current Minister of Finance is talking “wage restraint” – “wage freeze” by another name – from New York. Mr Chris Sinckler told NATION New York Editor Tony Best there that wage restraint in the public service was “going to be critical to achieving our goals”.
Further, the Minister of Finance said the need for this “wage restraint” had already “been communicated to public workers’ unions by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart”.
“It’s not a new position,” says Mr Sinckler.
We would not be irresponsible enough to suggest that there is not need for fiscal prudence so far as salaries and wages are concerned. But Government’s achieving of its “goals” will not be successful if it does not truly cut out its very own wastage.
On top of that, the Government has a solemn duty to see that prices for necessities are kept within decent bounds – which appears a severe challenge for Mr Sinckler. People who do a day’s fair work are not only due a fair day’s pay. They deserve an even fairer standard of living.