CombatIssue#:1 Volume#: 33 Voice of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) January/February, 2011

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page One

Sugar First Crop Commences

Guysuco aims to produce 265,000 tonnes sugar this year The Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (Guysuco) com-menced the harvesting of canes for the year, target-ing production of 265,000 tonnes sugar, of which the production of 101,813 tonnes is to be attained at the conclusion of the current first crop. A mere target of 265,000 tonnex explains the inablity of the industry to meet its sustainable challenge. The undermentioned indicates the number of grind-ing weeks of the Estates during the First Crop:-Skeldon - 8 weeksAlbion - 12 weeksRose Hall - 9 weeksBlairmont - 10 weeksEnmore - 13 weeksWales - 10 weeksUitvlugt - 8 weeks In other words, each estate will operate for about 10 weeks during the crop. Will the industry attain its first crop target? The quantity of cane and the yields per hectare will basically determine the crop’s production. The first crop target over the past five (5) years aver-aged 108,911 tonnes sugar, while the average achieve-ment was 100,393 tonnes sugar, or 92.87 per cent. Taking into account an average of ten (10) grinding weeks across the industry’s seven factories, including the poorly performing and newly constructed Skeldon factory, the first crop target, although low, may not be attained owing to inadequate canes. As at week ended February 25, 2012, the sugar pro-duction attained was as follows:-

Estate Target to Date

Production to Date

Variance

Skeldon 0 0 0Albion 3,780 2,337 1,443Rose Hall 2,431 1,186 1,245Blairmont 4,725 195 4,530Enmore 986 0 986Wales 2,052 436 1,616Uitvlugt 3,750 1,174 2,576Total 17,724 5,330 12,394

Inclement w e a t h e r across the i n d u s t r y and indus-trial unrest particularly at Blair-mont Es-tate have significantly marred the early per-f o r m a n c e of the crop. There are two poten-tial issues which are c u r r e n t l y t r o u b l i n g the indus-try. The Corporation needs to pay workers their Annual Production Incen-tive (API) of 7.58 days’ pay for last year (2011). Work-ers at Rose Hall, Albion, Blairmont and Uitvlugt Estates would receive 9.1; 8.07; 8.56; and 8.17 days’ pay re-spectively, owing to better individual production levels than the other estates. In the past years, not later than the first month of the year, workers received their API. The cash-strapped Corporation publicly stated, two weeks ago, that it could hardly obtain loans from the commercial banks for crop financing, and workers would not be able to re-ceive their API before March 16, 2012, some days after two shipments of sugar would have been dispatched to Tate and Lyle in London, thus ensuring adequate rev-enue inflows to facilitate the payment of the Incentive. The other issue is the implementation of the Job Eval-uation Report. The Corporation and the Union, in late December, 2011, completed a tedious job evaluation

exercise which evaluated 173 jobs among 6,214 time-rated workers who are members of the Union. Seven new scales or bands are to be implemented retroac-tively to January 01, 2011, and certain “service pay-ments” are to be awarded, taking into account the past services of employees in their current jobs. Should the implementation of the Report be delayed indefinitely, it will create a potential breeding ground for industrial action.

The good news is that the Minister of Labour, Dr N.K. Gopaul, in a letter to the Union dated February 21, 2012, assured the Union that the recommendations of the Job Evaluation Committee would be implemented in June this year. The Union has since written Guysuco drawing its attention to the Minister’s assurance, and is seeking an urgent meeting with the Corporation to identify the actual date of the implementation of the Report.

The newly built Skeldon sugar factory

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Two

GAWU members partcipate in Mash celebrations

Some 300 members of the Guy-ana Agricultural and General Work-ers Union (GAWU), drawn from our membership in the sugar industry, participated in the annual Mash-ramani celebrations and float parade on February 23, 2012. Members of the Union joined members of the Guyana Labour Union (GLU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employ-ees (NAACIE) under the banner of the Federation of Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) in the annual cel-ebrations. FITUG’s band marched under the theme: “Forging an Immediate Tem-po to Unite Guyanese - FITUG”. Revel-

lers were attired in Guyana’s national colours. Green for our agricultural re-sources, Red for the zeal and dynam-ic nature of national building, Gold for Guyana’s mineral wealth, Black for the endurance that will sustain the forward thrust of the Guyanese people, and White for the rivers and water potential. GAWU had been participating in the celebrations for many years. This year, for the fourth consecutive time, it has participated in the country’s Mashramani celebrations under the banner of FITUG, which, incidentally, was the only trade union body which has been participating in this nation-al event.

Meet your Branch Executives

Twenty-eight complete two-day course

Twenty-eight (28) members of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) belonging to BEV Processors Inc, Guyana Forest-ry Commission (GFC), Noble House Seafoods Limited, National Parks Commission, Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund Committee (SILWFC), Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL), Demerara Harbour Bridge, Ber-bice Bridge Company Inc, Demerara Timbers Limited (DTL) and Caricom Rice Mills Limited, participated suc-cessfully in a two-day course at the GAWU Labour College on February 14 and 15, 2012. Presenters focused, on the Termi-nation of Employment and Severance

Pay Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, National Insurance Scheme (NIS) Benefits, Collective Bargaining, How a Company Oper-ates, the History of the Union and Working Class Ideology, among other subjects. At the conclusion of the seminar, participants expressed their appre-ciation to the Union for conducting what they described as a very educa-tional course. They felt obliged to en-courage their workplace colleagues to attend similar courses when the opportunity arises. They also ex-pressed their interest in attending-courses of longer duration with a wider curriculum.

GAWU’s members taking part in the celebrations

Raymond Wong persishes Cde R a y -m o n d K h a n W o n g , a long standing employ-ee of the the National P a r k s C o m -mission

(NPC), died following an accident on Vlis-sengen Road on (Friday) February 17, 2012. He succumbed mainly from severe head in-juries. Raymond, as he was popularly called, was a supervisor of NPC. At the time of the accident, he was returning to one of the two bases of the NPC in Georgetown following a task he and the driver of a tractor and trailer conducted at Sparendaam, six miles from Georgetown. The left rear wheel of the trac-tor traversed into a deep pot hole on Vlis-sengen Road, resulting in Wong being cata-pulted from the floor of the trailer where he was sitting. He was almost pitched head-on to the hard ground, and died about eight (8) hours later in the intensive care unit of the Georgetown Public Hospital. Cde Wong, who was two (2) years away from retirement, left to grieve his family, in-cluding his seven (7) children, relatives and friends. He is remembered to have been the most steadfast union activist at NPC, who had promoted and supported the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union

(GAWU) to become the representative un-ion at the Commission. It took twelve (12) long years of struggle for union recognition. Raymond Wong never wavered in promot-ing GAWU among his colleagues, who grew in number over the years in support of the Union. Despite court injunctions filed by the then incumbent Union and other frustrat-ing activities, recognition of GAWU by the employer was obtained on January 09, 2009, mainly due to the active and large numerical support of the employee,s led and inspired by Raymond. The Union in recognition of Raymond’s dedicated service appropriately honoured him at the Union’s 19th Delegates Congress in August, 2009 through the presentation of a Certificate and a Gold Union Pin. Raymond worked with the NPC for twen-ty-four (24) years, and was stationed at the Zoological Park for many of those years; but last November he was transferred to the Botanical Gardens. Every employee at NPC knew Raymond pleasantly and personally. At his funeral, on February 21, 2012, at Uni-ty Street, La Grange, West Bank Demerara, which drew a large gathering, many of his workmates were present. Appropriate trib-utes were delivered by his relatives, friends and workmates. The President of GAWU, Cde Komal Chand, observed the exemplary life Ryamond had lived as a villager and an employee. He observed that Raymond made a significant contribution to the develop-ment of his country. He advised that others should emulate at least some of Raymond’s attributes.

At recently held Branch Conferences the elected committees comprise:-

Skeldon EstateChairman: Deodat Persaud Thakurdin, Vice Chairman: Ernest Mandal, Secretary: Uranie Heeram, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer: Ab-dool Salim Zaleel and Committee Members: Michelle McBean, Shaym Jabar, Barbara Cort, Derrick Clarke, Intiaz Persaud, Victorine Crawford, Abigale Blair, Ranjandra Churan, Laljit Chatterpaul, Richard Budhoo, Bal-ram Deo, Rebecca Harris, Jerrick Southwell, Stephanie Adams, T. Beharry, Y. Drepaul and Lennox AprilAlbion EstateChairman: Hernie Parks, Secretary: Rickram Shrikshun, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer: Bevon Sinclair, Organising Secretary: Ganga Persaud Shivdyal and Committee Members: Mohamed Gafoor, Victor McKenzie, Vishnu Nandlall, Krishnadatt Ramlakhan, Krihnadat Pooran, Deodat Doodnauth, Ingrid George, Nola Thomas, Cronston Dey, Vickram Sa-hadeo, Ravichan Singh, Leloetha Skeete and Debbie SempleRose Hall EstateChairman: Mohamed Ahamad, Vice Chair-man: S. Rabindranauth, Secretary: Charles Cadogan, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer: K. Ramnarase and Committee Members: I. Persaud, C. Sinclar, D. Simon, S.Parris, R. Dhanraj, G. McChorde, N. Sukhia, K. Ramo-

tar, R. Southwell, R. Ramlall, Ramsaywack, K. Sukhu, C. Lindo, V. NewYear, L. Simon, R. Sinclair and O. RichardsonBlairmont EstateChairman: Julius Nurse, Vice Chairman: Rubraj Singh, Secretary: Bhikram Singh, As-sistant Secretary/Treasurer: Travis Edwards and Committee Members: Gowkarran In-derjit, Narine Jairam, Vernice Henry, Jasoda Kishore, Brentnal Drakes, Mahdendra Puran, Shiek Baksh, Mahendra Persaud, Motilall Dyal, Dharamdeo Bridgewalla, Brian Roop-narine, Bramdeo Rampersaud and Kapil Per-saud

Enmore EstateChairman: Rampersaud Prashad, Vice Chair-man: Roy Dundas, Secretary: Balram Sukh-ram, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer: Mon-doer Persaud and Committee Members: Penelope DeFretias, Suresh Oudith, Rich-ard DeFretias,Rudolph Gill, Noaymie Farrel, Vidyanand Persaud, Shonnet Glasgow and Chetram Mahindranauth

LBI Estate EstateChairman: Laloo Tekchand, Vice Chairman: Vishnu Lewis, Secretary: Rakesh Daby, As-sistant Secretary/Treasurer: S. Sharukh and Committee Members: Harilall Boodram, Heralall Budhu, Mahendra Jaimangal, Dun-stan Collins, Subschand Ramjeet, Inhan Ali and Durga Singh

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Three

GAWU observes thirty-six years of Recognition

It was thirty-six (36) years ago on February 27, 1976 that the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) secured recognition from the Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco), then the Sugar Producers Association (SPA), to become the bargaining agent of the field and factory work-ers of the sugar industry.

The many battles for recognition of GAWU in the sugar in-dustry spanned almost three (3) decades. There was no law to compel an employer to recognise a Union of the workers’ choice, and thus sugar workers and GAWU were forced to employ confrontational and antagonistic actions, from time to time, in the struggle for union recognition.

The SPA had the then incumbent Man Power Citizens’ As-sociation (MPCA) in its bosom, it is said, a few years after that union became the recognised bargaining agent in 1939. The workers’ struggle for a new union started with the Guiana Industrial Workers Union (GIWU), which was formed in 1946. One of the early highpoints in GIWU’s support of sugar work-ers was in the struggle of the workers at Non Pariel, Lusig-nan and Better Hope in 1948, to address the then imposition of the cut-and-load system in the place of the cut-and-drop system. The objective of the strike also included recognition of GIWU by the planters, and the protestation against the miserable working and living conditions in the sugar belt. That struggle ended when five (5) sugar workers were cold-bloodedly killed and fourteen (14) others injured on June 16, 1948 by the colonial police who collaborated with the sugar planters.

GIWU did not survive beyond a few years. Soon after 1955, it became fully defunct following a split within the leadership of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in 1955. Another chal-lenging Union, the Guiana Sugar Workers Union (GSWU), was formed and registered in 1961. It was renamed the Guyana Agricultural Workers Union (GAWU) in 1962. GAWU contin-ued the struggle for union recognition. The sugar planters were determined not to recognise GAWU despite the fierce struggle mounted by the Union and the sugar workers. There were strikes called by GAWU which at times closed or seri-ously affected the functioning of the industry for days, weeks and months. Lives were lost, workers who refused to divorce their support to GAWU were sanctioned by the planters. Workers were also harassed by the state machinery. There were cases whereby they were brought before the court on trumped-up charges.

At last, the SPA decided to have a poll conducted by the Ministry of Labour on Old Year’s Day 1975. The change of the

SPA’s stance was attributable to the changing political climate and the fact the industry was slated by Prime Minister Forbes Burnham for nationalization in 1976.

The result of the poll vindi-cated GAWU’s claim that it had overwhelming support of the sugar workers. Of the 21,655 votes casted by workers, the MPCA ignominiously received 376 or 1.71 per cent, 92 or 0.42 per cent were deemed spoilt, and GAWU deservedly ob-tained 21,487 or 97.87 per cent of the votes.

From December, 1997, work-ers in Guyana no longer have to

go through a travail like GAWU had to go through to secure any employer’s recognition. The PPP

Government enacted a law to ensure workers’ right to be-long to a union of their choice, and to have their union rec-ognised. The employer is also legally compelled to bargain with that Union. The PPP in Government in 1953 and 1963 got debated appropriate legislation for union recognition. Unfortunately, in 1953, the British Government, as colonial master of Guyana, removed the Government just as the Government was approving the legislation, on charges that the Government was promoting communism. In 1963, the combined parliamentary opposition, fully supported by the workers’ umbrella body, the Trade Union Congress (TUC), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the British Intelligence, the American Institute for Free Labour Development (AIFLD) and other hostile anti-Socialist bodies, opposed the law.

In our annals, it must be indelibly recorded that the culmi-nation of the long and hard struggle for GAWU’s recognition is inextricably linked to Dr Cheddi Jagan. As a foremost politi-cian, a trade unionist and Honorary President of GAWU, he tirelessly advocated for GAWU’s recognition in the Legisla-ture, in the street corners and in papers presented at over-seas and local fora whenever he referred to workers’ strug-gles for betterment and changes. Indeed, Cde Cheddi was an outstanding colossus who rendered relentless support in the long and bitter recognition struggle. From the days in 1943, after his return from studies in the United States of America, and especially after the martyrdom of five workers at Enmore in 1948, he stood as a true ally in every work-ers’ struggle. He not only stood with the sugar workers, but with all other workers in the promotion of their rights and in improving their working conditions. He used every forum at his disposal, whether local or overseas, to stand with the masses. From 1947 in the Legislature, then the youngest Par-liamentarian, he stood alone, supporting the sugar workers, defending their interests against the the plantocracy hawks and their allies in that August body. He agitated equally on behalf of other workers. Cheddi Jagan, as leader of the Po-litical Affairs Committee and the Peoples’ Progressive Party (PPP), as well as head of the PPP Governments in 1953, 1957, 1961 and 1992, remained steadfast in his commitment towards the promotion of the welfare of the working class in Guyana.

Since GAWU’s recognition in 1976, workers from many oc-cupations have turned to GAWU for union representation. The Union, today, undoubtedly the largest Union in the Caribbean, represents twenty thousand (20,000) workers. Workers represented are from the Guyana Sugar Corpora-tion (Guysuco), the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund (SIL-WFC), the Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL), Caricom Rice

Mills Limited, BEV Processors Inc, Noble House Seafoods, the Demerara Timbers Limited, the Guyana Forestry Com-mission, the Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, the Ma-haica/Mahaicony/Abary Agricultural Development Author-ity, the National Parks Commission, and the Berbice Bridge Company Inc.

To make the Union’s name reflective of its growing member-ship outside of the sugar industry, at the Union’s 8th Con-gress, in 1978, the Union’s name was finally changed to the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU), but the acronym “GAWU” was retained because it has be-come a household name in Guyana.

A period of 36 years as a recognized Union was different from 28 years during which the Union was fighting for recog-nition in the sugar industry. During the last 36 years, GAWU had to advance the pay levels of its members, represent improvement of their conditions of work, and obtain better fringe benefits for them. Representation outside of the walls of the employers has not been neglected, since GAWU does not restrict itself to struggle within the sphere of economism. Because of the massive role of sugar in the country’s econ-omy, its contribution to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, its being a net foreign exchange earner, its employment of 18,000 Guyanese and the militancy of its workforce, many politicians attempted to organize the sugar workers away from GAWU. They saw that sugar workers would enhance their political aspirations. Sugar workers, however, aware of GAWU’s commitment and ardent work which resulted in im-provement of their welfare, have not allowed themselves to be fooled, and they remain fully supportive of GAWU. No ef-forts are spared in the organizational building of the Union. The functioning of groups and branches of the Union is pro-moted to empower rank-and-file members in their involve-ment to address issues, especially at their workplaces. Of ut-most importance, the Union ensures that, in every decision taken with regard to pay rise, working conditions, and secur-ing of new fringe benefits, the workers in every bargaining unit of the Union are fully involved in negotiations with their employer through their shop stewards or representatives.

Not only were attempts made to woo away GAWU members and to divide the unity of thw workers for some politician’s selfish aggrandizement. Two distinct attempts had been made to derecognize GAWU in the sugar belt. There was an attempt by the Hoyte Administration in 1988. Guysuco suspended its relationship with the Union for about two (2) weeks, and starved the Union financially through the non-deduction of union dues. Opposition to the Government’s action and the fear of reprisal by the Union’s membership caused Guysuco to restore its relationship with the Union. Two years ago, the Union came under intense pressure as it heightened its struggle to secure appropriate pay for its members in the sugar industry, noting the escalation of the cost of living. Union-supported industrial action attracted criticism from the Government, and in December,2010, the Corporation threatened, in writing, to derecognize the Un-ion. The Union immediately galvanized support against the Cor-poration from the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG), its members and friends, and thus the then President, Bharrat Jagdeo, recognizing the dangerous situation which might evolve, made an unambiguous state-ment that GAWU would never be derecognized while he served as President. Apart from genuine representation and negotiated benefits secured from employers by way of collective bargaining, the union also offers bursary awards, and a death benefit and credit union facilities. It publishes a bi-monthly newspaper, Combat, which is distributed to Union members and to Un-ions, libraries, fraternal unions etc.

Continued on page six

Representatives of GAWU and the Sugar Planters Assocation signing the Recognition Agreement on February 27, 1976

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Four

INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL

Could Ecuador be the most radical and exciting place on Earth?By Jayati Ghosh

Ecuador must be one of the most exciting places on Earth right now, in terms of working towards a new development paradigm. It shows how much can be achieved with political will, even in uncertain economic times. Just 10 years ago, Ecuador was more or less a basket case, a quintessential “banana republic” (it happens to be the world’s largest exporter of bananas), characterised by politi-cal instability, inequality, a poorly-performing economy, and the ever-looming impact of the US on its domestic politics. In 2000, in response to hyperinflation and balance of pay-ments problems, the government dollarised the economy, replacing the sucre with the US currency as legal tender. This subdued inflation, but it did nothing to address the core economic problems, and further constrained the domestic policy space. A major turning point came with the election of the econo-mist Rafael Correa as president. After taking over in January 2007, his government ushered in a series of changes, based on a new constitution (the country’s 20th, approved in 2008) that was itself mandated by a popular referendum. A hall-mark of the changes that have occurred since then is that major policies have first been put through the referendum process. This has given the government the political ability to take on major vested interests and powerful lobbies. The government is now the most stable in recent times, and will soon become the longest serving in Ecuador’s tumultu-ous history. The president’s approval ratings are well over 70%. All this is due to the reorientation of the government’s

approach, made possible by a constitution remarkable for its recognition of human rights and the rights of nature, and its acceptance of plurality and cultural diversity. Consider just some economic changes brought about in the past four years, beginning with the renegotiation of oil contracts with multinational companies. Ecuador is an oil ex-porter, but had benefited relatively little from this because of the high shares of oil sales that went to foreign oil compa-nies. A new law in July 2010 dramatically changed the terms, increasing the government’s share from 13% to 87% of gross oil revenues. Seven of the 16 foreign oil companies decided to pull out, and their fields were taken over by state-run companies. But the others stayed on and, as a result, state revenues in-creased by $870m (£563m) in 2011. Second, and possibly even more impressively, the govern-ment managed a dramatic increase in direct tax receipts. In fact, this has been even more important in revenue terms than oil receipts. Direct taxes (mainly corporation taxes) increased from around 35% of total taxes in 2006 to more than 40% in 2011. This was largely because of better enforce-ment, since the nexus between big business and the public tax administration was broken. Third, these increased government revenues were put to good use in infrastructure investment and social spending. Ecuador now has the highest proportion of public invest-ment to GDP (10%) in Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, social spending has doubled since 2006. This has enabled real progress towards the constitutional goals of free education at all levels, and access to free healthcare for

all citizens. Significant increases in public housing have fol-lowed the constitution’s affirmation of the right of all citizens to dignified housing with proper amenities. There are numerous other measures: expanding direct public employment; increasing minimum wages, and legally enforcing social security provision for all workers; diversify-ing the economy to reduce dependence on oil exports, and diversifying trading partners to reduce dependence on the US; enlarging public banking operations to reach more small and medium entrepreneurs; auditing external debt to re-duce debt service payments; and abandoning unfair bilateral investment agreements. Other efforts include reform of the justice system. One exciting recent initiative is the Yasuní-ITT biosphere re-serve, perhaps the world’s first attempt to avoid greenhouse emissions by leaving oil underground. This not only protects the extraordinary biodiversity of the area, but also the habi-tats of Ecuador’s indigenous peoples. The scheme proposes to use ecotourism to make human activity compatible with nature. All this may sound too good to be true, and certainly the process of transformation has only just begun. There are bound to be conflicts with those whose profits and power are threatened, as well as other hurdles along the way. But for those who believe that we are not condemned to the gloomy status quo, and that societies can do things differ-ently, what is happening in Ecuador provides inspiration, and even guidance. The rest of the world has much to learn from this ongoing radical experiment.

Rush for land a wake-up call for poorer countries, report saysBy Claire Provost

Population growth, the increasing consumption of global elite, and an international legal system skewed in favour of large scale investors are fuelling a worldwide rush for land. This is unfolding faster than previously thought, and is likely to continue, according to the largest study of international land deals to date. Researchers estimate that more than 200m hectares of land – over eight times the size of the UK – has been sold or leased between 2000 and 2010. But although the food price crisis of 2007-08 may have triggered a boom in inter-national land deals, the study argues that a much broader set of factors – linked to population growth and the rise of emerging economies – is raising the prospect of “a new era in the struggle for, and control over, land in many areas of the global south”. Forty civil society and research groups fed into the global commercial pressures on land research project, co-ordinated by the International Land Coalition (ILC), which draws on a decade of data to identify and analyse trends in large land acquisitions, and highlights the role of governments in bro-kering deals that may marginalise rural communities and jeopardise the future of family farming in favour of big indus-trial projects. This is, to date, the most comprehensive study of international land deals, pulling together findings from in-vestigations around the world. Over the last year, a number of reports have focused on cases of foreign investors “grabbing” large tracts of land in poor African countries to grow cheap food for their own pop-ulations. But, according to a study published by the ILC, rich national investors play a much larger role than previously thought, food is not the main focus of these deals, and Af-rican governments are not the only ones signing away large

tracts of land. Data collected by researchers show that around 40% of land acquired over the last decade is intended for biofuel produc-tion. In comparison, 25% is for food crops, and another 27% for mining, tourism, industry and forestry. But the focus of land deals also varies by region: In Africa, 66% of land deals cross-referenced by researchers are intended for biofuel production, compared with 15% for food crops. Meanwhile, food production seems more significant in Latin America (27%), along with mineral extraction (23%). The report also notes that regional dealings may be on the rise: in South-East Asia, for example, 75% of reported land deals have been struck by regional players, and South Afri-can investors have acquired an estimated 40.7m hectares of African land since 2009. The full data from the Land Matrix research project will be published later this year. Though policymakers seem to have recently warmed to the potential role of family farms, the report says, enthusiasm for industrial-scale agriculture continues to sideline small farmers. Many developing countries, under pressure from the IMF, the World Bank and a number of government aid agencies, are going to great lengths to attract and legally protect for-eign investment in agriculture and extractive industries, set-ting up sophisticated specialised agencies to promote invest-ment opportunities and offering benefits such as tax breaks and low prices, said the ILC. The US aid agency, USAID, hosted an international confer-ence to promote foreign investment in South Sudan. Re-search by the US-based Oakland Institute suggests that al-most 9% of South Sudan’s land had already been leased or bought by investors prior to the country’s independence in July this year. The study argues that international trade regimes are over-

whelmingly skewed in favour of international investors, while fewer and less effective international mechanisms ex-ist to safeguard the rights of the rural poor. Meanwhile, the common lack of formal legal titles to land is heightening the vulnerability of rural communities. “As governments own the land, it is easy for them to lease large areas to investors, but the benefits for local communi-ties or national treasuries are often minimal,” said Lorenzo Cotula, of the London-based International Institute for En-vironment and Development. “This highlights the need for poor communities to have stronger rights over the land they have lived on for generations.” Last year, the G20 summit in Seoul encouraged all countries and companies to uphold a set of principles for responsible agricultural investment, developed by the UN and the World Bank. But critics argue that voluntary international agree-ments can amount to little more than window-dressing. Earlier this year, African leaders gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, to discuss ways to regulate land-based foreign direct invest-ment. Resistance to large land deals is growing. In August, resi-dents of Mukaya Payam, in South Sudan’s Central Equatoria state, launched a campaign against what would have been the country’s largest land deal – a 49-year lease of 600,000 hectares by an American company. Last month, hundreds of smallholder farmers and civil society activists converged on Selingue, in southern Mali, for the first international farmers’ conference to tackle the global rush for land. The ILC says: “Optimistically, it may even be hoped that rural communities in many parts of the world are able to finally achieve secure access to, and control over, their land through struggles catalysed by the increasing demand for it. It is to be hoped that the rush for land will act as a wake-up call, pro-voking a reconsideration of the path we are on.”

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Five

INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL | INTERNATIONAL

US Trojan Horses in Venezuela

by Nil Nikandrov

In February, 2012, representatives of 55 Venezuelan NGOs called on the international community to defend democracy in the country at a media event in Miami, charging Hugo Chavez with threatening democracy, neglecting human rights, and igniting a civilian conflict in Venezuela. The participants of the event pledged that a campaign built around the demand to put the Venezuelan leader on trial would continue in order to keep Chavez’s regime under permanent pressure, and its coordinator Carlos Fernandez announced that an appeal had been supplied to the Hague Tribunal to make Chavez face justice over nothing less than alleged crimes against humanity. At the moment, the key lines on the Venezuelan opposition’s grievances list are com-pany nationalizations, the looming closure of the anti-Chavez Globovision TV channel, attempts to introduce Marxism in Venezuelan schools, and crackdowns on the opponents of the current Venezuelan regime. Fernandez, who had been on the radical fringe during the 2002 outbreak of anti-government protests in Venezuela, urged the international community to act immediately and warned that failure to do so would result in the entrench-ment of a militarist, Castro-communist regime in Venezuela for years. He also confided to the audience that an inves-tigator was dispatched by the Hague Tribunal to Colum-bia to examine files on the notebooks which belonged to slain FARC secretariat member and spokesman Raúl Reyes. Chavez would eventually face justice for his FARC connec-tions, claimed Fernandez. NGOs mushroomed in Venezuela after Chavez’s 1998 elec-toral triumph, and at the moment their number estimatedly reaches several hundred. Back in 1998, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Na-tional Endowment for Democracy (NED) enjoyed unlimited freedom of maneuver in the country and made full use of it to expand the influence of the US intelligence community over Venezuelan society. Correspondence from the US em-bassy in Caracas, released by WikiLeaks, left no doubts that the US Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the US Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Drug En-forcement Agency (DEA) had been taking advantage of the situation to make inroads into Venezuela. Washington had to learn as the 2002 anti-Chavez coup col-lapsed that the Venezuelan leader was a serious opponent who would not crack under pressure and at all times re-mained a clever strategist. Chavez managed to handle suc-

cessfully recurrent con-flicts with the Empire, while staunchly uphold-ing his socialist project domestically and build-ing ever stronger posi-tions internationally. Given Chavez’s record, which includes oil sec-tor nationalization and the expulsion of the fifth column from the petroleum industry, the removal of conspiracy-prone officers from the army top command, and nationally oriented socioeconomic reforms, plans for his ouster in a violent putsch obviously stand no chance, and Washington therefore has to place its bet on a color revolution in Ven-ezuela.

This type of revolt in the country does not seem altogether impossible as support for the opposition in Venezuela typi-cally measures around 35% and the Venezuelan middle class, students, and intellectual circles for the most part do not fa-vor Chavez. These are the communities currently comprising the audience of the Venezuelan NGOs and receiving from them perks in the forms of grants, travel support, and costly gadgets. Color revolution champions are trained in Ven-ezuela based on movies featuring corresponding episodes from recent East European history. As in Cuba, the white color is chosen as the hallmark of the Venezuelan protesters. What Venezuela’s NGOs must pretend to be oblivious to are Chavez’s achievements in fighting poverty, strengthening the national economy, and boosting the amount of welfare for the population.Naturally, Venezuela’s young are the NGOs’ main target au-dience. Student attack groups played the central role in the clashes between protesters and police in Venezuela in May, 2007 when the government revoked the license of the RCTV channel (the step was taken in connection with the fact that the RCTV broadcasting contract expired at the time). Chavez described the unrest as an attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government and called the residents of low-income urban quarters and villages to resist what he termed a fascist offensive. In response, Andrés Bello and Catholic University student leader, John Goicoechea said that Chavez drumming up support among the more radical part of his constituency who were supposed to confront the violence-prone students was an irresponsible policy. Shortly there-after, Venezuela’s state-run TV showed Goicoechea’s phone book with the US embassy phone number and that of the US diplomat who worked with students. Goicoechea later stepped out of the spotlight, but there is surely still a place for him as a skilled color revolution activ-ist in CIA plans and we will see him stage a comeback. The US programme of training students from affluent Venezuelan families stays on-line, though tricks with white shorts, white paint on palms, etc. reflect a rather unimaginative attempt to replay past success stories. NGOs like Provea, Cofavic, Centro de Derechos Humanos (in the Catholic University) Una Ventana a la Libertad, and Sinergia occupy the human rights advocacy niche. According to Chavez and his supporters, the groups, along with the op-position media, deliberately draw a distorted picture of what is happening in Venezuela, hammering just about every as-pect of the country’s life, be it the situation within the army,

the struggle against crime, detention conditions, workers’ employment terms, the environment, Indian problems, etc. Activists from the above NGOs were spotted a number of times with CIA operatives who supply to them instructions and funds. The NGOs submit to the CIA lists of candidates for admission to courses teaching “self-defense” under the conditions of “instability”, which evidently means a provoked crisis. The legitimacy of Venezuela’s electoral procedure is being permanently challenged. US puppeteers who used to say that Chavez had employed the national electoral council for ballot-rigging were instrumental in forming the NGO known as Sumate. María Corina Machado, a defeated candidate in the 2002 presidential race, headed Sumate in 2002. Predict-ably, she called into question the outcomes of essentially all elections and referendums in Venezuela, for example, that of the 2004 referendum in which Chavez smashingly won 60% of the vote. The image of Sumate suffered a heavy blow when it was learnt that money – occasionally, tens of mil-lions of US dollars – was fed to the group on a regular ba-sis by the NED. Chavez accused Sumate of conspiracy in the wake of the revelations. Machado personally met with US President G. Bush at the peak of her career, but her prestige was irreversibly eroded. In 2005, the Venezuelan office of the general prosecutor charged Sumate with exerting pressure on the authorities and receiving funds from an organization controlled by the US Congress, but the case, after a series of re-openings, finally stalled in court. The activity of NGOs in Venezuela continued completely unchecked over the first decade of Chavez’s rule, while the police and counter-espionage agency were constantly dis-covering that the confidants of the US and other Western countries in Venezuelan NGOs collected information of mili-tary importance across the country or surveyed its regions bordering Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana.

It should also be noted that foreign intelligence services are keenly interested in Venezuela’s Amazonia, and environ-ment- protection NGO activists are spying in the parts of the country formerly frequented by US preachers from the New Tribes Mission. Some 30 secret aerodromes were used to il-legally carry out Venezuelan gold, diamonds, precious met-als, and, according to several accounts, uranium. The latter circumstance may be paradoxically related to the concerns voiced by Bush’s and Obama’s Administrations over Ven-ezuela’s allegedly existing secret uranium mines with Iranian workers on staff. An end was put to the untamed activity of NGOs – the US Trojan Horses in Venezuela - in December, 2010 when the parliament of the country passed a law on the protection of political sovereignty and national self-determination. The legislation was backed by the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) and predictably met with resistance mounted by the opposition which actually thrives on foreign donations. By law, groups are subject to sanctions for receiving mon-ey from abroad with the aim of destabilizing Venezuela or undermining the present authorities. If caught red-handed, NGO activists would have to pay in fines twice the amount received from other countries or even face the loss of politi-cal rights for 5-8 years. Moreover, fines and deportation now await foreign nationals involved in funding subversive NGO activities in Venezuela. With the financial transparency regulations for NGOs now in place, there is hope that the level of corruption in Ven-ezuela’s politics will visibly decline, but it should be realised that the channels via which NED, USAID and others, pour mil-lions of dollars into the country have not been fully severed. As noted by Eva Golinger, a person extremely knowledgeable about CIA operations against Venezuela, the easiest way to smuggle currency into the country is to have it delivered by diplomatic mail.

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Six

Guyana receives G$3.4B from EU as Accompaning Measures

The European Union (EU), in December 2011, dis-bursed to the Government of Guyana G$3.4B (€12.5M) out of an allocation of G$5.6B (€18.8M) as Accompany-ing Measures for 2010. The difference between the al-location and the actual disbursement was as a result of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco) being unable to achieve its targeted production in 2010. The Accompanying Measures are in fact financial as-sistance from the European Union (EU) to the 18 Afri-can, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) sugar-producing coun-tries to alleviate the negative impact of the EU’s 36 per cent price cut during the years (2006 – 5 per cent price cut; 2008 – 9 per cent price cut; and 2009 – 22 per cent price cut) for sugar sold by the ACP countries to the European Union (EU). In order to access the assistance, countries were required to submit multiannual adapta-tion strategies (MAAS), better known as Sugar National Action Plans. Guyana submitted its plan in March 2006, seeking €440,232,980 or US$620,789,649 towards a series of projects which were aimed at, among other things, increasing production and improving productiv-ity in the sugar industry; since Guyana, unlike the ma-jority of Caribbean sugar-producing nations, has a com-parative advantage in the production of sugar. Between 2007 and 2010, the EU has disbursed G$19.3B (€72.5M) out of an allocation of G$28.1B (€97M) to the Government towards the MAAS. Guyana suffered a penalty of €6M for the late submission of Guysuco’s 2008 - 2017 Business Plan, and the remaining €18.5M was not disbursed due to Guysuco’s failure to achieve its production targets in 2008, 2009 and 2010. This year, the Government stands to receive an ad-ditional G$6.8B (€24.9M) as an allocation for 2011. For 2012 and 2013, the EU has allocated G$15.5B (€49.8M), and should Guyana fulfill the agreed parameters, the full sum with respect to 2011 and the ensuing years to 2013 would be disbursed. The EU Delegation in Guyana, in announcing the re-cent disbursement through a press release on January 30, 2012, stated as follows:-

“Euro 12.5 million was transferred in December 2011 by the European Union to support the sugar sector in Guyana. This disbursement was part of the EU-fund-ed Multi-annual Sugar Programme 2007-2010, which supports the Government of Guyana in its efforts to

improve the competi-tiveness and viability of the sugar industry in Guyana. From 2006, when the programme started, the European Union has already made available € 72.5 mil-lion to the sugar sec-tor in Guyana, equiv-alent to GYD $19.3 billion at today’s ex-change rate. A fur-ther amount, up to € 24.9 million, is sched-uled to be disbursed in 2012, once the Fi-nancing Agreement is

signed between the EU and the Government of Guy-ana, which is expected in the near future. This will be part of the second Multi-annual Sugar Programme for the period 2011-2013. The EU support continues to assist Government’s policy to reform the sugar sector by upgrading Guy-suco’s sugar factories, establishing a sugar packaging plant at Enmore, increasing sugar production, and mechanizing Guysuco’s field operations in particular, thereby improving the cost-effectiveness of the sugar industry. This EU assistance is provided through a direct budg-et support mechanism, and the disbursements are made based upon the achievement of performance indicators that monitor the implementation of the sector policy on sugar. Funds are also channelled to-wards studies, evaluations and audits to ensure effec-tive implementation. The EU formulated its overall response strategy fol-lowing the submission of the Guyana National Action Plan on Sugar in March 2006, which emphasises en-hancing the competitiveness and productivity of the sugar sector. This approach was reconfirmed in the latter part of 2011 for the new Multi-annual Sugar Programme 2011-2013.”

Of the €72.5M received, the Government has released €8M or US$12M to the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (Guysuco) for construction of the Packaging Plant at En-more, which was commissioned in May, 2011. GAWU has been strongly advocating that 76 per cent of the EU disbursements to the Government arising from the Accompanying Measures must be fully allocated to the Corporation, since 76 per cent of the projects outlined in the plan are sugar-oriented.

Guysuco deservedly requires the full financial sup-port being received by the Guyana Government from the EU, following the 36 per cent price cut for its capi-talization programme to make the industry competitive and viable. The industry’s production has been disap-pointing over the past seven (7) years, and the lack of immediate financial investment in the industry would succeed in deepening the debilitating process of the most important entity of the country’s economy.

Job Evaluation being negotiated Following the completion, on December 28, 2011, of the work of the Job Evaluation exercise, which was conducted by a ten-person committee comprising equal representatives from the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (Guysuco), the Union and the Corporation met on February 07 and 16, 2012 to formally approve the implementation of the Com-mittee’s recommendations. The Committee evaluated 173 jobs among six thousand two hundred and fourteen (6,214) time-rated workers who be-long to the field foreman and field/factory bargaining units. On February 16, 2012, the Corporation agreed to implement the seven new recommended wage bands or scales. The Corporation, however, wants the implementation of the new bands from January 01, 2012 rather than January 01, 2011. GAWU is adamant that the retroactivity payment must be with effect from January 01, 2011. Further, the Corporation wants to pay as a service payment only half a per cent for each year of service a worker has served in his/her current post up to a maximum of ten (10) years’ service. In the case of employees who belong to the bargaining unit of the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial Industrial Employees (NAACIE), the Corporation awarded a service payment of two (2) per cent for each year of service up to ten (10) years. GAWU, at the Union/Corporation meeting of February 16, 2012, deemed Guysuco’s “half a per cent” offer to the Union as outright discriminatory. Guysuco pointed out at the meet-ing that a sum of G$1.3B (US$6.5M) would be required to implement the new bands from January 01, 2011 and the two (2) per cent service payment up to ten (10) years back. The meeting on February 16, 2012 ended with the the Cor-poration’s representatives seeking to have another meeting later, since further guidance from Guysuco’s hierarchy was required. There was a breath of fresh air with respect to the im-plementation of the report of the job evaluation exercise in that the Minister of Labour, in a letter to the Union dated February 21, 2012, assured the Union that the findings of the job evaluation committee would be implemented before the end of June, 2012.

GAWU observes thirty-six years of RecognitionContinued from page three

The Union also maintains a proud record of accountability. Since its recognition, the Union has never failed to have its yearly accounts audited promptly by the Auditor General. Education of its members is treated as a high priority. The Union, in March 2010, commissioned a Labour College - the GAWU Labour College. The College boasts dormitory facili-ties for 35 persons, two classrooms and a library, among its facilities. It replaces the Union’s School which was destroyed by fire during the 2001 post-national and regional elections’ disturbances. The College is being used to impart labour ed-ucation to the Union’s rank and file.

At the international level, GAWU is an affiliate of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) which has a member-ship of 80 million in 120 countries; and to the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Association (IUF), which represents 336 organisations in 120 countries, comprising a membership of some 12 million workers. Locally, GAWU is an affiliate of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG). The unions affiliated to FITUG are organized in many stra-tegic sectors of the country’s economy, and they represent approximately thirty-five thousand (35,000) of the fifty thou-sand (50,000) unionized workers in the country.

COMBAT: January/February, 2012 Page Seven

GAWU at WFTU Presidential Council The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) was represented at the 6th Presidential Coun-cil Meeting of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) held in Johannesburg, South Africa on Febru-ary 09 and 10, 2012. GAWU’s President, Cde Komal Chand, a Presidential Council member, attended the meeting, the first, fol-lowing the highly successful 16th WFTU Congress held in Athens, Greece from April 06 – 10, 2011. The meeting began with a presentation by the WFTU’s dynamic General Secretary, Cde George Mavrikos. In his presentation, Cde Mavrikos reviewed the international situation since the last WFTU Congress. He enumer-ated a number of events which were initiated, inspired and participated in by the WFTU across the world. He identified the basic issues in today’s struggles as “First, a deepening capitalist crisis through an effort of the bourgeoisie to transfer the burden of the crises to the working and popular layers. Second, the tension of the intra-imperialist conflicts and their expression through tough aggressions of NATO, the EU and their allies. Third, the struggle of the working class and the popular layers which is getting more intense and gives hope and perspective to the peoples and the workers.” He said “the latter fight back and their struggle is inten-sifying every day.” Almost all the delegates addressed the two-day meet-ing, outlining their respective struggles and gave their account of the dire international situation. The WFTU is strengthening its bulwark role in guid-ing the world’s working class movement as the antago-nism between capital and labour becomes intensified. More and more unions have become affiliated to the WFTU. Currently, the WFTU has 80 million members in 120 countries. Also, it has just added another Regional Office in South Africa to the member offices in the con-tinent. The success of the 6th meeting is owed to the support from four progressive unions in South Africa namely:- the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA); the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Unions (NEHAWU); the Chemical, Energy, Pa-per, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers Union (CEPP-WAWU); and the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU).

The following is Cde Komal Chand’s address to the meeting:-

“Allow me at the very outset to convey on behalf of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Un-ion (GAWU) fraternal greetings to all the delegates present here to participate in this meeting of the Presidential Council of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU). Greetings also are extended to the working people of South Africa and particularly our Trade Unionists representing the South African work-ing-class.

When we met at our 16th Congress, less than a year ago, we identified and spoke of the crises which have beset the world. As we begin 2012, we can say, in many respects, there is an aggravation of those cri-ses. The ruling classes and their handmaidens in the imperialist/capitalist world are hard pressed to find real solutions and an end does not appear in sight.

Referring to the economic/financial crisis of capital-

ism which has engulfed the global economy since September, 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said recently that the world economy is ‘deeply into the danger zone’ and warned that the global economy could fall into an economic spiral reminis-cent of the 1930s.

And, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in its Global Employment Trends Report 2012, revealed that one (1) in three (3) workers globally is either liv-ing in poverty or is unemployed. The report said, that there are 27 million more unemployed workers today than at the start of the crisis and the ILO forecasts that an additional 3 million will join the ranks by year end.

These and similar revelations attest to the serious and aggravated state of the world in which we live. Not only are the working people and youth the victims of the crises, but the ruling classes are also placing the burdens of their so-called solutions on the backs of the working-class, youth and working people as a whole. Thus, austerity measures abound. Millions, in-cluding pensioners, are affected. Education and other social benefits critical to the livelihood of working people and their families are drastically and heart-lessly being slashed.

We should underline that in the pursuit of ‘solutions’ by the ruling classes, there is no meaningful con-demnation of the neo-liberal policies, now a system of exploitation and greed which have triggered the crises and which today hound our world. Instead, we see fresh assaults on democracy and freedoms, all the while trying to delude us into believing they are genuine upholders and promoters of such values. We must be wary of such developments. They are clearly directed against the interests of the working, dem-ocratically-minded and peace-loving peoples. One of the more recent attacks coming to the public’s atten-tion are the several measures directed at the right to privacy and free speech through the control of the internet and which has met widespread protest and resistance. Equally, the world’s working-class is duty-bound to actively condemn the various violent actions by the capitalist states against the peaceful protests of peoples and youth.

To perpetuate its ruling class status, the elites will stop at no crime and show no or little respect for law, sovereignty, morality, or tradition in the process.

But, comrades, we cannot help but recognise and be inspired by another reality of our troubled world. Here, I speak of the militant struggles and, at times, fierce battles launched by workers and other sectors in several countries, including, importantly, in Europe and North America. We note the diverse and creative methods used in their struggles to defend their inter-ests, their livelihoods and their lives. Their struggles for specific and immediate goals cannot be delinked to the wider struggles in defense of freedoms, democ-racy for social justice, against war and environmental concerns.

The WFTU has a matchless history of support and in-ternational solidarity. Karl Marx, wrote in the Com-munist Manifesto of a spectre haunting Europe. In

our day, that spectre has transcended the boundaries of Europe and is hovering over other regions of our planet. In such times, as big as the challenges are, the WFTU must continue and intensify its solidarity activities and make its unstinted contribution for far-reaching social and economic changes and an alter-native, pro-working people social order.

Comrades, as we meet here today, we cannot be oblivious to the loud war-drums of US imperialism, its NATO allies and Israel, signaling more wars, this time with Syria and Iran. We have seen the atrocities and barbarism the Pentagon and its NATO allies and their puppet states are capable of in Libya, also in Iraq, Af-ghanistan, and other countries, in Africa. And in bla-tant disregard to world opinion, the US continues to embrace Israel, with its violent, naked and apartheid policies against the Palestinians. They do so, with the complicity of the corporate mainstream media, and sadly certain local forces too. War atrocities are fol-lowed by control and plunder of the country’s wealth and/or are in keeping with geo-political objectives.

As the prospect of more wars initiated by imperial-ism and its allies, the adrenalin of the war hawks and sectors of the multinational corporations are flowing. But serious analysts have sounded the warning, that war in the Persian Gulf can very well lead to a Third World War and even, heaven forbid, to a nuclear con-flagration.

The war machine and madness must be stopped. We must say a resounding NO to covert operations against countries, assassinations, and military adven-tures and conflicts. The struggle for peace must be given the urgent attention that it deserves.

The WFTU must also pay greater attention to impe-rialism’s machinations in the developing world, es-pecially those countries with fertile land and which have strategic resources. There are growing protests and struggles around the land grab phenomenon and in the mining practices of multinationals. These ac-tivities that exploit and extract countries resources and sold as ‘development’ projects bring with them a range of problems – from environment to human rights – while minimally impacting on poverty in those countries.

In the drive to grab and control the world’s resourc-es, super-profits and world hegemony, imperialism’s true nature stands exposed even more starkly today. What is does not get through collaborationists’ of-ficials, “soft” power and “smart” power, it takes by might. But there is no smooth sailing.

The system of capitalism is wracked by the crises. It is facing challenges not just by the working people of the developed countries, including the USA, but in-creasingly, by peoples across the world. The situation calls for our collaborative efforts, united actions and clear and courageous leadership.

The working class along with other sectors of the working people and youth are at the frontlines. Let them be assured that alongside them in these strug-gles is the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU).”

COMBAT is a publication of the Guyana Agricultural & General Workers Union (GAWU)59 High Street & Wights Lane, Kingston, Georgetown, Guyana, S.A.Tel: 592-227-2091/2; 225-5321 , 223-6523 Fax: 592-227-2093

Email: gawu@bbgy.com Website: www.gawu.net

Guysuco’s Poor Management Continues18 “white elephant” tractors bought The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU), through a usu-ally reliable source, learnt that eight-een (18) Italian-made Landini tractors, purchased some time ago, to facilitate tillage operations across the industry, have been found to be unsuitable. Cost-ing millions of dollars, the Union under-stands that the supplier’s liability period for the machines expired before the Cor-poration became aware of the machines’ unsuitability. It is understood that the Corporation hopes to convert the trac-tors to drain-digging operations, which

will be costlier to use than the traditional machines, of which the Corporation has an adequate fleet.

Workers want to know about the steps which were followed to determine the suitability of the tractors, and whether the proper procurement procedure was followed. The machines should be deemed white elephants and placed in the scrap heap of the Corporation, wait-ing to be disposed of as they become rusty derelicts sometimes the future.

12 wrongly suited Bell Loaders purchased

According to information reaching the Guyana Agricultural and General Work-ers Union (GAWU), the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (Guysuco) recently pur-chased twelve (12) brand new Bell Load-ers or Mechanical Cane Loaders from South Africa. It has been reported that the booms of the Loaders are much shorter than the required size. The acquired Bell Loaders, therefore, have to acquire longer booms. Guysuco, therefore, is taking the booms from those Bell Loaders which are await-

ing replacement spares and using them as replacements for the shorter booms. As such, the old Bell Loaders are likely to be left permanently unserviceable. Addi-tionally, the Union was advised that the newly acquired Bell Loaders are fitted with incorrectly sized tyres, which do not allow the maximum use of the loaders in our terrain. What a wasteful expenditure of our be-leaguered sugar industry, arising from apparently the bungling of the gov-ernace of the industry.

Advisory Committee appointed to inquire into Blairmont strike On February 21, 2012, Minister of La-bour, Dr N.K. Gopaul, appointed an Ad-visory Committee in keeping with Sec-tion Six (6) of the Labour Act Chapter 98:01 to inquire into a strike by work-ers who were seeking the removal or transfer of the Estate’s Manager, Vic-torine Corbette and the Agricultural Manager, Anil Seepersaud from Blair-mont.

The decision to appoint the Advisory Committee followed eleven (11) days of work-cessation by an overwhelm-ing number of workers of the Estate from February 10 to 21, 2012. Initially, the striking workers identified three is-sues. One related to inadequate com-pensation cane cutters of the 6B2 gang received for cane reaped on February 09, 2012. Another, surrounded intend-ed disciplinary action addressed to two (2) workers of the Field Workshop should they fail to offer acceptable ex-planations for certain alleged infrac-tions. The final issue related to factory workers requiring a pass issued by the factory manager to security at the fac-tory gate confirming the completion of workers’ tasks. This requirement applied only to piece-rated workers engaged in task work, who, at times, would complete their assignments be-fore the end of their shift, when the majority of factory workers would end their day’s work. The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU), through the shop stewards and the Field Secretary and later the General Secretary, was able to have two of the issues favour-ably resolved by February 12, 2012. The outstanding issue, relating to the harvesting gang was to be further ad-dressed after those workers resumed work.

It came to the fore, after exhaustive intervention to resolve the three is-sues, the workers wanted the removal of the Estate Manager and the Agricul-tural Manager. The workers claimed that the two (2) Managers were gradu-ally denying them some of their long-established working conditions and customs and practices.

The leadership of the Union sub-sequently held a meeting for almost

five and a half hours (5½) hours with twenty-four (24) shop stewards of the Estate at the Union’s Headquarters on February 16, 2012. The stewards outlined a number of issues affecting them at their workplace. They pointed out that some of their working-condi-tions were being changed arbitrarily. The Union having heard of the matters, informed the stewards that the identi-fied matters would be raised with the Corporation, as soon as Guysuco could meet with the Union after the conclu-sion of the strike.

On the demand for the removal of the two Managers, the Union advised the stewards that the Corporation in-timated that such request would not be entertained without the reasons established by the Union following a resumption of work. The shop stew-ards, at the conclusion of the meeting, agreed to advise their fellow workers to return to work with effect from Feb-ruary 17, 2012. The workers across the estate did not return to work as was expected.

The Minister of Labour, on February 21, 2011, announced the appoint-ment of the Advisory Committee. The workers subsequently resumed work. The Committee comprises of former Minister of Labour, Dr Dale Bisnauth as Chairman; former Chief Labour Of-ficer, Mohamed Akeel as a member; and Neville Nichols of the Ministry of Labour as Secretary. The Committee’s Terms of Reference are as follows:-

“To inquire into the trade dispute existing between the Guyana Sugar Corporation and the Guyana Agri-cultural and General Workers Union with particular reference to the cir-cumstances, which led to the strike at Blairmont Estate on 9th February 2012 and the call made by the work-ers for the removal of the Estate Manager and the Agricultural Man-ager and to make such recommen-dation as deem expedient”

The Union with evidentiary support from the shop stewards and workers will address the Committee with rea-sons supporting the removal of the two (2) Managers. The first sitting of the Committee is expected in the first week of March, 2012.

Above, one of the older models of Bell Loaders in the Corporation’s fleet