“Trevor name pun de list, and Dennis name pun de list, Alfred name pun de list and Valance name pun de list”. (The List, Gabby 1982)
THE EVENTS OF last week should take our collective minds back to 1982 when the Mighty Gabby penned a song entitled The List, an excerpt from which is reprinted above. This song was of course promptly banned on account of its coincidental resemblance to real persons who were still alive.
In those times, Gabby was brave enough to speak to events like this list that have now become part of Barbadian folklore. The list of which he spoke was, of course, entirely a figment of a fertile imagination – a conclusion which any right-thinking person who considered those facts would have reached.
Although the facts related to last week’s scenario are very different, there are two key similarities; the first being that most of us would prefer not to be on either list and the second and more important is that in both instances the circulation of such a comprehensive list is a proposition that is simply absurd.
In the case of Gabby’s list, the absurdity relates to the fact that it obviously never existed. In this more recent instance, the absurdity is grounded in the profound folly of the compilation of the names of 3 000 public servants to be dismissed and further aggravated by the discussion of such a list at Cabinet and thereafter with Trade Unions and other “social partners”.
To be sure, such an approach sounds exactly like the political fairy tale that it is and one wonders how experienced and astute trade union leaders were able to keep a straight face when this promise was made to them some weeks ago.
It is tragic that not only did these leaders believe that such a list would be forthcoming, but were so inspired by the fable that they repeated it and even convinced their members that before anyone went home, the list would be checked to ensure that “undue hardship” would be avoided at all costs.
Needless to say, the tragedy is enhanced by the fact that these same unions were already promised that not a single worker would be dismissed (three times) and thereafter promised that since it has become necessary to break the first promise; they would be consulted regarding who would go home.
The initial dismissals from the Ministry of the Environment were thereafter construed to be a breach of the second promise, so the unions were advised that this was a mistake, for which an apology was offered and a third promise was made regarding this mythical list.
Certainly the latter type of list would have been a goldmine to a union leader who wanted to stall the process of dismissals, but a nightmare to any prudent leader who appreciates the need to contain his deficit.
Upon receipt of such a list, the union leaders could quickly set to work constructing sound reasons why anyone on that list should not be taken off and soon thereafter Government would need to compile a second list.
The condition that no dismissal should cause undue hardship or affect two breadwinners in any single household could easily be manipulated to cover most of us in this country which is known for flexible and diverse living arrangements.
In addition, if the dismissal of two breadwinners is considered offensive, then the dismissal of the sole breadwinner should be doubly offensive. Perhaps the dismissal of one man who supports two or three households (which is not unknown to our landscape) would be so offensive that it would not even be considered.
As such there can be little question about the logic of not preparing or circulating a list, that is if one is serious about dismissing 3 000 workers quickly.
It is a logic that would appeal to any rudimentary understanding of human resource management, which prompts one to ask why then would a government even suggest the alternative. The simple explanation lies in a toxic mix of the politics of evasion.
If I promise to prepare and circulate a list for “agreement,” I can easily argue that it was not “me” that dismissed anyone but instead “we” agreed that it was a good thing to do.
The fact that such an “agreement” is near impossible is irrelevant since I can always argue that I was misunderstood (yet again) especially as “you” have a bad habit of misunderstanding “me” anyhow.
Peter W. Wickham (peter.wickham @caribsurf.com) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
