#BTEditorial – Is it really all for one and one for all?

What is the state of the social partnership in Barbados? This is an important question to place on the table as the level of unease rises between labour, government and the private sector.

We understand that each has competing interests, and the demands of their constituents are quite diverse. But this is exactly why we have a social partnership agreement in place.

The much-vaunted social compact was hammered out during one of the most tumultuous periods in this country’s post-independence history.

Barbados was on the verge of economic disaster in the early 1990s. The fixed exchange rate that maintains the Barbados dollar at two-to-one to the United States currency was under imminent threat as devaluation was on our doorstep. Thousands of public officers had to be cut from the civil service, and in some cases, both breadwinners in the same household were left jobless. That was the precipice from which this country’s social partnership was birthed.

Around the world, the compact was hailed and other countries in the Caribbean tried to fashion similar national arrangements. Not many have had the effectiveness or longevity of Barbados’.

In an article for Global, one of the island’s outstanding public officers Peter Laurie wrote: “In the darkness of those times there was a glimmer of light. Barbadians, although angry at the government, rallied around the country, and the majority of civil servants formally agreed to the wage cut in order to avoid the devaluation of the currency. The trade union movement and the business community persuaded a reluctant government to engage in continuous consultation to redress the deteriorating economic situation. Bridges of trust were built, creating a favourable environment for cooperation between the three parties.”

The latest dispute over the government’s introduction of the Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill 2024, which threatens to pull concessions granted by the state to employers who are in breach of certain labour laws, has caused tension in the tripartite arrangement.

Some private sector players are reportedly not comfortable with the measures and appear ready to take action if the legislation goes ahead.

The Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU), which is taking on a more aggressive posture as criticism of its handling of workers’ grievances is rising, is backing the proposed legislation.

BWU General Secretary Toni Moore offered this comment to the media: “The resistance from certain quarters of the private sector, especially the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association, is not unforeseen. Their tactics, ranging from absenteeism at crucial meetings to taking out full-page ads to create confusion, aimed to cloud the true essence of the bill.

“This is not a narrative about bureaucratic red tape or the inconvenience to profitability; it is about rectifying long-standing injustices our workers face.”

There was similar pushback from the private sector when Prime Minister Mia Mottley made it clear she and her Cabinet were taking forward their plan to increase the minimum wage rate.

Arguments were made that it was the wrong time, given that the country was trying to emerge from the crippling COVID-19 pandemic. Many asked when would be the right time.

Workers have made significant sacrifices, especially those in the tourism sector who, in many cases, gave up their right to claim severance when the sector was on the verge of imploding from a global shutdown of the hospitality sector.

In fact, it was argued that it would have been impossible for most hospitality-based employers to pay severance to the thousands of workers who had to be severed. The National Insurance Service (NIS) – now the National Insurance and Social Security Service – would have been forced to fill the breach, which, in turn, would threaten the viability of the NIS itself with such a large and sudden call on its severance fund.

In the current dispute over the planned legislation, we agree the current conditions for workers in Barbados are tough, given the high cost of living.

Employees and employers are not equally yoked. The majority of the power and influence still rests with capital and someone has to provide a shield for workers.