The president of Public Services Association (PSA) has promised that today's demonstration by workers to protest the Government's offer of a five per cent increase for public servants for the period January 2008 to December 2010 will attract close to 25,000 workers. The number of people marching on the streets of Port-of-Spain is one thing, but today's demonstration has managed to unite a wide cross section of trade unions-some of which were integral to the successful campaign for the May 24, 2010, general election waged by the People's Partnership. Among those at the forefront of today's demonstration are expected to be the leaders of the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union, Communication Workers' Union, T&T Unified Teachers' Association, and the Banking, Insurance and General Workers' Union. In all, there is an expectation by the PSA that some 19 trade unions and workers' groups will support the protest. Let us be clear: In a democracy, trade unions have a right to demonstrate in order to convince employers of their strength of numbers, thereby hoping to influence the course of negotiations.
Once demonstrations receive the green light of the security authorities and are conducted in a peaceful manner that does not disrupt the normal course of business, there is nothing wrong with workers exercising their constitutional right of assembly. But that is not the issue. The issue is this: Would a demonstration as large as the one promised by Watson Duke have any impact on the Government's negotiating strategy? There is little likelihood that any Government worth its salt would be intimidated by the sight, and sound, of thousands of workers marching around the Financial Complex. But there is a possibility that if this issue is not handled with political sensitivity and tact it could snowball into a general strike, which could cripple the already beleaguered local economy and send the wrong signals to local and foreign investors, many of whom have been sitting on the sidelines instead of putting their money to work in the interest of the nation's development. Given the fact that there have been precious few signs of private sector investment in T&T in the last 18 months, anything that causes investors to rethink possible decisions must be deplored. It would be much better all around if both the Government and the PSA returned to the bargaining table with both sides prepared to give up something in order to ensure that this potentially dangerous situation does not get out of hand.
The Government must signal a willingness to increase its offer from five per cent and the PSA must be prepared to reduce its demands so that they are more in line with what the country can afford at this time. Both sides must be willing to place their egos in check in a way that would bring this matter to conclusion in the near term as it is clear that the negotiations between the Government and the PSA will provide a template for future negotiations between the State and public officers. All trade unions which are participating in the demonstration today must realise that there simply is a limit beyond which it would be financially irresponsible for Finance Minister Winston Dookeran and the Chief Personnel Officer, Stephanie Lewis, to go in meeting the demands of the PSA and the other trade unions to come in future. Given the precarious nature of the T&T economy-still dominated by energy revenues which are volatile and liable to correct at any time-offering public servants too much opens the door to an increase in taxes, the retrenching of public servants or a reduction in the amount of money that is spent in providing public services. Eleven negotiating meetings in three months does not come near to being sufficient cause for mass demonstrations. Let maturity, good sense and the national interest prevail in this matter.