Wage increases, questions on preparedness

Government’s recent announcement of a planned two per cent increase in both the national minimum wage and the sectoral minimum wage for security guards has generated mixed reactions, with several business leaders contending the move caught them off guard.

Yet, according to Minister of Labour Colin Jordan, the increase should not have surprised anyone. He insists that the adjustment was announced as early as March during the Budget, giving businesses more than eight months to prepare.

The proposed changes, set to take effect from January 21, 2026, will move the national minimum wage from $10.50 to $10.71 per hour and raise the minimum for security guards from $11.43 to $11.66 per hour. These adjustments fall under the Minimum Wage Act, 2017-4 and follow another increase implemented only six months earlier, in June.

The Ministry of Labour has already published the draft Minimum Wage Order online and invited objections or recommendations from the public until January 18, 2026. Any submission must state the grounds for the objection, the objector’s interest, and any suggested amendments.

Still, some business owners said they were unaware that another increase was coming so soon. Reports indicated that several employer groups had not been told the precise timing or details and needed to consult internally before making any public comment.

A security company manager said the announcement had only reached them hours earlier and that they needed time to examine the effect on their operations, including their contracts with clients.

This is where Minister Jordan’s comments add a new dimension. Speaking at a press briefing at Ilaro Court, he expressed concern that some in the business community claimed to have been “caught unaware,” despite the March Budget clearly stating that wages would rise by two per cent in January.

According to Jordan, government deliberately gave extended notice to avoid the uncertainty and confusion that some employers say they are facing. He stressed that the Budget announcement was widely reported and was followed by discussion with several sectors. While he did not want to speculate on why some employers seemed surprised, he called on businesses to pay closer attention to developments affecting their workers.

Jordan also defended the size and timing of the increase. While he said government understood the need to balance wage protections with business survival, he argued that the rise was necessary to help low-income earners manage basic food costs in an environment that is still overshadowed by high prices.

As he put it, the additional 21 cents per hour could be “the difference between being able to continue to buy a piece of fish or chicken to go with your rice.”

On the other hand, some critics say the increase should have been delayed until a full impact study was completed. But Jordan has insisted that the Minimum Wage Board had already started preliminary modelling and a two per cent increase was fair and reasonable.

The administration is also facing the criticism that raising the minimum wage would automatically force up wages across all salary levels. To this the minister said most workers earn more than the minimum and such an issue was a matter for employers and unions to negotiate.

What is occurring in Barbados has become the norm in minimum wage debates around the world and reflects common issues of communication, timing, and preparedness. On one side, business leaders continue to argue that they need adequate notice to revise budgets, renegotiate contracts, and adjust their operations. This was also expressed months earlier by the Barbados Employers Confederation, whose executive director had warned that short notice complicates financial planning for companies. The impact can also be greater for small and micro-operators.

On the other hand, government maintains that notice was more than adequate and that businesses simply failed to pay attention.

It is fair to ask whether the issue here is a private sector that is not keeping track of important policy changes, or the government communicating near the point of decision rather than facilitating thorough and ongoing dialogue.