Leaders with Limited Views

17, Jul 2000
THE task intended was to propose a minimum programme for labour unity at this point. But there came immediately the pertinent question: who shall assume the historic burden of calling together these "diverse and disparate elements" to engage discussion and debate on a minimum programme of activity? Who has the moral authority? Who has the integrity and the bigness of heart to even dare tackle this challenge?

Such a line of thought would obviously take one down a parallel road to the one that arises every election when we ask the perennial question: who we go put? That line of thought presupposes what we like to refer to as a "superman concept" of history; a concept which implies that the history of countries and nations are, in fact, merely the history of individuals, or of super men and women, or great kings and queens, or strong ruthless leaders seized and possessed by visions of grandeur and so on and so forth.

In reality, nothing is further from the truth. History tells us that there are objective factors relevant to time and place, of which the major factor is the masses in movement, self-organised in the course of action, that create the reasoning and consciousness that is embodied and reflected in leaders that are thrown up.

And leaders are known to outlive their time and their usefulness at which point the masses in movement simply ignore and by-pass them. A leader is nothing outside of a precise relationship with the mass in movement and action. Therein lies the problem with Natuc.

Natuc it would seem is an executive operating in a vacuum. Affiliate unions select representatives relative in quantum to the overall size of total membership and these representatives in turn elect a Natuc executive, ie president, general secretary, etc, that runs and manages the affairs of the combine until the next elections are held.

The problem is that between elections and the general conventions, or if you wish "general council", of affiliate union representatives, the executive primarily is left to function on its own though surely there is a constitution that spells out the responsibilities of each officer in the executive as well as that of the executive as a whole.

But without regular convening of that broad representative body to ratify executive decisions and activities, what will be the result when splits and differences emerge and contradictions heighten at executive level? Everything will grind to a halt.

That is exactly the present predicament with Natuc. And probably it was felt that new elections would serve to resolve the conflicts, instead the elections intensified the differences. Either side in the present split seems to want to completely route and decimate the other by way of the elections, in which case the rupture may be completed and the two tendencies, reminiscent of Congress and CPTU, may very well go their own way, reverting to the past.

Does any of the sides possess the numbers in the convention to completely take over the entire executive? And would that be deemed good for trade unionism in this country? Or they may wish to continue what was acceptable in recent times when they all were "lovey-dovey", which was to divvy up the executive portfolios among the stronger unions, and if that is no longer acceptable to all then they probably may select the "most non-threatening" union representative as a caretaker to see Natuc through its present difficulties and complete the stalled elections. But this could go on forever.

The point is that the reason of the masses in action must be brought to bear on the situation, leaders engaging by themselves will not suffice.

The minimum programme for labour unity must begin with structural reform of Natuc. A regular convention, representative of the mass of union members, must be constituted as an authority to control and ratify the doings of the executive.

Once that is accomplished then the issues which are important to the masses of workers would take priority over the personal issues such as who are government Senators and who are not, who are on which boards representing government or not, and who are political puppets and who are not.

Labour by way of Natuc must have a position of the following: the minimum wage, what formula was utilised to arrive at this $7 an hour.

It is a fact that the very same formula used back in the days of Cipriani was again used based on the very limited basics necessary for a worker's survival without any regard to overall social and cultural nurturing requirements of modern existence. Man does not live by bread alone!

And shouldn't the minimum wage vary and be relative to the specific industry? Formulae for national insurance and pensions, health surcharge, etc should be re-examined by labour in order to come up with new approaches to suit the new environment.

The whole question of contract labour is yet to be dealt with in a universal sense rather than a mere sectoral sense. Not to mention that there are still many areas in T&T in which workers are not unionised and management operates like feudal lords. Natuc as the umbrella combine should be addressing this vigorously.

Also, the question of free movement of labour and capital in Caricom, given the present debate on a single market economy (CSME) and monetary union: how does labour view itself in relation to the regional perspective?

The question of the information technology (IT) revolution and the importance of "communications" to modern living and the need to free up this sector throughout the Caribbean from Cable & Wireless monopoly according to the WTO parameters, etc. Why are our labour leaders limiting their view of the world?

A minimum programme around such issues as those mentioned will force all and sundry to focus themselves on what is crucial to the development of the country and the region.