One of the historical tensions in the capitalist mode of production is the conflict between capital on the one hand and labour on the other. In some ways, the contention represents a divide between two competing moral legitimacies. You may be wondering what morality has to do with it. Let me assert that all things involving human relations must concern themselves with morality. When we say that some action is unfair or unjust we are making an essentially moral judgment. Of course that depends on one’s sense of social morality.
Invested capital has a right to an appropriate return on monies invested. It also has a moral obligation to pay a fair and just wage to workers. Conversely, labour, as a key factor of production, has a right to demand a fair return on its inputs and again the obligation to provide a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. Fair and unfair are of course relative concepts. Historically there has always been an exploitative element in capitalism whether we are talking about child labour during the Industrial Revolution or the exploitation of the ‘robber barons’ in early twentieth-century America. In plantation America including the Caribbean, exploitation in the form of Negro slavery was arguably the worst expression of human relations. The tension between white capital, both indigenous and foreign, is still with us and that tension is reflected in the controversy over the current Labour Clauses (Concessions) Act.
A person’s stance on labour relations invariably reflects firstly their social origins or secondly where they currently are in the social hierarchy. As they say, where you sit invariably determines where you stand. As a child I recall my father complaining about how some workers at Fogarty’s department store were being treated in relation to both wages and conditions of employment. Once when visiting the store he pointed out Mr Egan the manager. My feeling was, ‘He is the man who un-fairing my fadda.’ Interestingly that sentiment still somehow colours my position on labour disputes. Some employers and managers do ‘un-fair’ workers.
Despite the growth of the trade union movement that tendency to exploit continues. Today’s trade unions find themselves fighting a rearguard action against what one writer calls ‘swashbuckling capitalism’. The Labour Clauses (Concessions) Act has brought to the fore the antagonism between capital and labour, the former represented by the Barbados Private Sector Association and the latter by the Barbados Workers’ Union. BWU General Secretary Tony Moore recently described as ‘shockingly absurd’ the BPSA notion of being unaware of ‘significant employee mistreatment’ within sectors benefitting from government concessions. One is inclined to think that BPSA cannot be unaware of some degree of employee mistreatment within some elements of the private sector. Over the past two decades, capital has gotten the upper hand over labour and in Barbados as elsewhere one hears stories of the use of contract labour, longer working hours without compensation, reduced staff complement with retained workers forced to do more and unfair dismissals. Recently we heard of employers refusing to pay workers on jury duty even though the laws of Barbados categorically forbid such action.
Much of the recent worker discontent in Barbados seems to have focused on the hotel sector which raises the question as to whether the protest is against indigenous capital or foreign ownership and management. One has no in-depth knowledge of labour relations in Barbados but from what little I can glean, local capital cannot today be accused of ‘significantly mistreating’ black labour. Foreign capital within the hotel sector may pose a different consideration. Local firms such as Williams Industries and Goddards Enterprises have a reputation for cordial relations with their workforces. This is a perception ostensibly recognised by the BPSA who question ‘why the actions by a few hotels have led to consequences for the entire hotel accommodation sector and beyond’.
There is an element within North American capital that is strongly unsympathetic to trade unions and labour generally. In a perennial attempt to safeguard the corporate bottom line, profit margins and shareholder returns, workers become the proverbial sacrificial lamb. Barbados is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign direct investment, some of which may be callous and perhaps even prejudiced in dealing with black labour. We must be wary of foreign firms seeking consciously or unconsciously to reverse the labour gains achieved over the past 70 or so years. I personally see nothing wrong with asking firms that benefit from government concessions to observe certain minimum standards in dealing with their workers.
Speaking in the Upper House, Senator Tricia Watson spoke to ‘a gaping hole’ in the Labour Clauses Act. It is not surprising that in the Caribbean we have difficulties with implementation because so much of legislation is vaguely worded. In Barbados, this is so because the legislation appears to be rushed to give a political impression of being ‘progressive’. On the act itself Senator Watson, who is possessed of a sharp, critical intellect, stated: “And in all that, we see no rules, no process, no timelines, no mechanism.’ This is a concern that apparently gives the new senator what she calls “the heebie-jeebies”. Not sure how that feels.
In this contention between capital and labour, governments, both BLP and DLP, often find themselves caught between the proverbial rocks and sundry hard places. If they want to win in elections they have to capture the mass working-class vote by at least appearing to favour labour. On the other hand governments in Barbados cannot govern without the help of capital, indigenous and foreign. In addition, they invariably rely on capital to finance political campaigns. No one knows for sure how indebted successive governments are to white capital and prone to do its bidding. In the shadows, rumours abound concerning who is manipulating whom and in whose interest. I see no evidence of the fact that local white capital is malignantly manipulative of black labour in Barbados. Of course, I may not have the evidence.
Since 1951, Labour administrations have governed ideologically as pragmatic centrists. They established what Professor Hilbourne Watson writing critically from a leftist perspective calls ‘a historic compromise’ or ‘a petit-bourgeois consensus’ between white capital and black labour. (See “Errol Barrow and the Post-War Transformation of Barbados”, 2020) I do not and have never agreed with his conclusion that this approach represents a conscious attempt to ‘keep working-class aspirations in check’.
Ralph Jemmott is a retired educator and regular contributor on social issues.
