THE Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) is distancing itself from a memo sent out to workers of the Barbados Transport Board last Friday, asking those interested in voluntary separation or early retirement to state their intentions by Friday, November 23.
General Secretary of the BWU Toni Moore told members of the media at the union’s Solidarity headquarters tonight that while the correspondence also stated that the BWU had agreed to the proposed packages, this was not the case.
Following a meeting with Transport Board workers, where the memo was one of many issues discussed, Moore made it clear that the Union would never agree to workers opting to go home, without knowing the terms and conditions of the packages.
“The Executive Council of the Barbados Workers Union wishes to distance itself from this approach as it relates to central government, as it relates to statutory corporations. Where there is going to be any agreement that carries the Barbados Workers’ Union’s signature to it, it would be an agreement that specifies to people up front, what they are entitled to, when they will be entitled to it, how it will be paid out to them,” The general secretary assured.
The memo to Transport Board workers, titled voluntary separation, read that further to the meeting of November 1, 2018, between the Board and the BWU, it was agreed that the Board would engage employees in a process of voluntary separation and or early retirement to those persons who have reached the legal retirement age of 60 years, in the first instance.
The letter also stated that in this regard, all interested persons were asked to submit their names on or before Friday November 23, 2018 to the Manager-Human Resources and Marketing.
“While at the national level the Barbados Workers Union does not distance itself from the proposal made to Government that where retrenchment of any kind was being contemplated that voluntary separation should be one of the first steps taken so that you ensure that people who might want to go have the opportunity to express it and can go as opposed to forcing people out who don’t want to go, and who perhaps can’t go because of their financial situation.
“So we are not going to distance ourselves from what has been a good proposal from us that voluntary separation should be considered. But where we have a concern is that we have not discussed with the Transport Board what form that voluntary separation should take, how it should be applied, and the Transport Board has gone ahead, giving the impression that it is final,” Moore said.
The General Secretary argued that management of the Transport Board has not given workers any indication regarding what they would receive if they volunteer to leave their posts.
“And this relates to a memo that would have been sent out from the Head of the Civil Service on Friday last week as well, asking Heads of Departments to entertain voluntary separation with a cut off date of the 23 of November.
“But get this, you fill out an option form to say I want to go and you get the details after. Does that make sense? Would the Barbados Workers’ Union, or anybody in their right mind agree to a situation that would have workers exposed to raising their hands for something and then finding out what they are going to get from it afterwards,” she said.
Meanwhile, President of the BWU Division of the Transport Board Frederick Lovell told Barbados TODAY that the union never entered any agreement with the Transport Board, about asking workers to go home voluntarily.
“So, to have said that the union would have agreed to it, is not factual. We would never agree to something to put our colleagues blindly to accept a pig in a bag. It was distasteful. Workers are left in a quandary as to how they should approach the situation. We cannot allow persons to sign off on anything, not knowing if they are signing their death wish,” Lovell said. (AH)
Go Toni. You go girl !
Practice what you learnt at the school of window dressing. By the way, the horses have already left the stables and are galloping towards the finish line, with your mouth on their tails. This means…..you ain’t saying nut-ten. The workers sell out for a six pence.
“The General Secretary argued that management of the Transport Board has not given workers any indication regarding what they would receive if they volunteer to leave their posts.”
One memo this writer has seen, states that “details of the separation package will be available shortly, and will be discussed with officers who express an interest.”
Not sure if this is the same memo sent to workers of the Transport Board, but if the content is the same, it seems as though the “cart is coming before the horse” on this arrangement.
This retrenchment initiative really reveals the power of top civil servants — they can either make a Government look good or they can make it look ineffective. In this case, the prime minister gave the policy directive and it appears that some bungling occurred along the way. They sent home everyone is some departments leaving them unable to function. It happened at the Schools Meals Department (retracted), with the Court cashiers and some other ministries. Look at how the process was handled at BADMC. The PM rightly referred to it all as “sabotage”.
On the matter of voluntary separation, why not provide the details first and the let persons decide if it is something they want to accept before signing an agreement of voluntary separation? Furthermore, what is there to hide that the details will only “be discussed with officers who express an interest”?
My thinking is that “voluntary separation” should have been the first option considered in the retrenchment process, but the unions agreed to the last-in first-out principle in the absence of an across-the-board performance appraisal system.
Having agreed to LIFO and sticking rigidly to the Employment Rights Act for “consultation” ahead of widespread layoffs, the unions cannot “eat its cake” and have it too. For example, the BWU was calling for “enhanced” separation packages at CBC, something that is not contained in the legislation.
It would seem to me that any variation in what is legally allowed, such as severance pay, vacation pay, monies in lieu of notice etc, any ex gratia payments would have to be provided for in amended legislation. This could have the effect of “biting” Government in the rear end down the road.
Both the unions and government appear to have themselves caught in a muddle and between a rock and a hard place over this entire retrenchment exercise.
Are people in barbados that has certain types of credentials and position stupid or illiterate which one it seems to me that ever black person wants to put the other person or persons in a situation that he or she is choking to survive when will we black people will ever learn
Be smart bajans don’t sign anything read terms and conditions please, take note
WUNNA DONE SELL OUT BLACK WORKERS already. All Trade Unions in Barbados in bed with the Govt. You all care nothing about your own race. Not a WHITE BAJAN or INDIAN MUSLIM getting hurt in this ongoing MASSACRE. I said over and over only BLACK BAJANS WILL SUFFER.
And this decimation of those at the bottom.
You are are on record as telling the Govt. to lay off all DLP supporters.
Last Friday the Barbados Transport Board sent home 50 BLACK WORKERS, with more to be fired this week.
To the Unions: as the old people say: “When yuh lie down wid dogs, yuh does get up with fleas”
Yes Carson, you are right. And the populace sent home 30 BLACK people in May. Deal with it.
roger dont be callous and stupid..u making sport or what..those politicians on both side bread well buttered..those 50 or more people might smell hell. i hate stupid satirical comments
Layoffs are inevitable,the only thing that is guarantee is death. There are no guarantees in life only opportunities
Roger: You are so correct. What the populace did was to exercise their constitutional rite. I have absolutely no problem with that. The voice of the people is the voice of God. BUT I hearing the Prime Minister, this morning, claiming “sabotage”. I am hoping that she is not casting blame on any of the “30” that was sent home on the 24th May 2018.
This women rode on a wave of disgruntled workers and then turned around and sold them out, and her soul. :O
Sell outs
This is what Mia actually meant when she called out ‘sabotage’.
This government want to sabotage the livelihood of workers with trickery. Imagine they want workers to sign something in seven days time, so they can send them by month end when they have not set out the terms and conditions.
Shame on you Gregory Nicholls, can’t believe this is the same man who fought for some, and was fighting for other workers months ago. Now suddenly your’e fighting against workers. That’s the true face of lawyers though, so I hope some of you now understand why I always say we need to get these lawyers out of our parliament.
now what details she could want at the 11 hour. the devil is in the details. leroy trotman train she well. looking at she you could she is one tricky female. you could trick some people some time. but you can trick all the people all of the time. but know the father ain sleeping. i wonder how some of these people does sleep at night knowing what them doing to people. selling them out like chicken and chips.
@Greengiant: “…so I hope some of you now understand why I always say we need to get these lawyers out of our parliament.”
And the first phase of your wish was fully realized on May 24! Let’s see what happens next 15 years.
@Greengiant.
the true face of lawyers though, so I hope some of you now understand why I always say we need to get these lawyers out of our parliament.
I totally agree. Can you imaging also, that we have a Speaker of Parliament that would go and defend an accused criminal in a serious case,and then come back and sit in the Speaker’s chair and formulate the laws of this land. Let another lawyer take the case, but not you as the House Speaker. What image does that leave in the public’s mind…it is nonsense.
Can you believe that a former Speaker of the House shafted an elderly wheelchair-bound John Griffiths of nearly $225,000 and refused to temporarily recuse himself from the chair until he made restitution to the senior citizen?
Worse yet the PM, himself an attorney-at-law, advised the Speaker to get a lawyer to represent him, knowing very well the loopholes and delays in the court system could have frustrated Griffiths to even abandon the case and caused him high legal bills. By the time the matter was dealt with in the courts, poor Mr. Griffiths could have been broke or gone to the great beyond.
That insidious advise and cunning maneuvering left a nasty image in the public’s mind. It was utter nonsense!
…advice*…
@ Carl Harper
You are then making the point, that both political parties are guilty of practically the same things, and that the BLP is full of shire also…correct? So the big pot should stop calling the kettle black!
@Johnny Crow: “You are then making the point, that both political parties are guilty of practically the same things….”
Not so fast, Johnny!
What law did the current Speaker break? Since when was it a crime to defend accused persons? Wasn’t he a criminal lawyer before he was elected to the Parliament? Did he solicit for his clients?
If Donville was in an ankle bracelet in Barbados he would be willing to represent him in court for free…if the fee was right.
But isn’t it a fact that a High Court judge make the former Speaker repay old man Mr. Griffiths all of the $225,000?
You Speaker appeared before the judge for wrongdoing, so it’s not the same thing. Only one person was “guilty”.
There is nothing the Barbados Trade Union prostitutes can do to MIA AMOR MOTTLEY. The Trade Unionists in Barbados are all bought and paid for by the Barbados Labour Party.
If wunna try anything MIA will expose all wunna dirty dealing leading up to the last general elections. And I know that wunna dont want that.
So this is all pappy show. Wunna sell out wunna own BLACK PEOPLE.
You all remind me of the people who sell out MARCUS GARVEY!!!