THE TWO SIDES in the dispute over severed/retired employees of the Barbados Investment and Development Corporation (BIDC) are clearly poles apart. What we are reasonably sure they will both agree on is that a national strike is the last thing Barbados needs right now.
It is against this background therefore that we offer unqualified support to the initiative of Minister of Commerce Donville Inniss to get the two sides back to the discussion table – even though both the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) and the BIDC say they are willing to do so, but with no preconditions.
In essence they have made it clear they will talk, but the decision to talk should not be taken as an indication that they have moved away from their original positions – in the BIDC’s case that the workers will stay “retired”, and for the union, that nothing short of reinstatement will prevent the closure of statutory corporations across the country.
What the country ought to be more concerned about is how they leave the discussions, not how they get started. Barbados is clawing its way back from a bitter recession and any action that prolongs that struggle should be avoided. The national emphasis should be on stimulating economic activity, not curtailing it, and we don’t say that to suggest the union is wrong.
What we are saying is that at this time we should do everything in our power to keep the National Conservation Commission open and functioning as it readies itself for the Sargassum battle, an event that can make or break our tourism sector if we don’t get a handle on it soon.
Even the very BIDC is a critical cog in the struggling industrial and investment wheel and we should not allow it to grind to a halt. In all, there are close to three dozen statutory corporations that could be closed if the union feels forced to flex its muscle, and with the Barbados Workers’ Union already stating its support for the NUPW, the impact could be devastating.
Additionally, the need to get the two sides talking again is critically important because both appear to have their cases grounded in laws that would appear at this time to be conflicting. The BIDC says it is within its right to retire the workers at age 60 because the relevant act gives it the authority, while the union says the law allows the workers to remain until at least age 66.
When two sides see their causes as being so ably supported by law, the chances of escalation appear higher than in a “regular” dispute. In this instance therefore, someone who is “right” may find themselves in a position where they have to retreat – in the national interest. This will only be achieved with dialogue.
The BIDC, and by extension the Government, may therefore find itself having to consider whether the six years of additional salaries for a dozen persons is a lower price to pay than the cost of national disruption.
Alternatively, the top brass of the union may find itself having to confront the reality that it may win this battle, but lose the larger war because the money to be paid in the face of a victory has to come from somewhere, and in the final analysis the Minister of Finance will determine where. That pain may be more severe elsewhere.
