EDITORIAL: Mr Shaw and the trade unions

Finance Minister Audley Shaw's tone will still not find favour with some. Indeed, there is a certain muscularity behind his declaration that: "The Government's position remains the same. We do not have the money."

And some will discern more than a hint of threat in the minister's remark that the Government would be forced to cut staff if public-sector unions insist on being paid the $8 billion they are owed in back wages, which the courts recently confirmed remain an outstanding debt.

This newspaper, however, does not presume that it was Mr Shaw's intent to be offensive and/ or threatening. For even if the administration cannot say when it will be in a position to clear the obligation, it no longer appears to be on a unilateralist track. According to Mr Shaw, the administration will soon meet with the Jamaica Confederation of Trade Unions to discuss the matter, unlike its previous approach in which it merely declared a wage freeze for the public sector, including previously agreed hikes.

Especial responsibility

Justice Anderson deemed such behaviour "disrespectful and indifferent" and made the point that governments have an especial responsibility to obey the laws, including those of contracts.

The larger point of the judge's comments is that when governments do not adhere to the law, they undermine the authority of the state and, with it, its own ability to enforce the law. It is from such attitudes and actions that anarchy is fashioned.

We expect the administration not only heard, but understood Justice Anderson. Which is why we do not expect that imminent meeting between Mr Shaw and the leaders of public-sector unions to be merely form and a platform for the minister to declare the obvious.

Neither do we expect the Government to cave in. It cannot afford to; not with a wage bill of nearly $128 billion this year, a large fiscal deficit and having to live within the strictures of the International Monetary Fund.

Possible bargaining chit

Nor do we believe that Mr Shaw should attempt to use maintaining public-sector jobs as some kind of bargaining chit. That approach would have a number of potentially bad consequences.

First, it would reinforce what, in the first place, was a bad idea - those agreements early in the decade when, rather than taking the tough actions to curb a ballooning wage bill, the previous administration agreed with unions to a freeze on wages. The result was to lock in inefficiency in the public sector.

Should this now be Mr Shaw's a priori negotiating position it would pre-empt, and possibly undermine, the public-sector reform project about which Prime Minister Bruce Golding has talked a lot and which is likely to include the shedding of some state jobs.

What, therefore, Mr Shaw and, by extension, the Government have to do is change the nature of the conversation. It has to be honest and frank, but respectful.

It can't be beyond the capacity of the Cabinet and its legion of technocrats and advisers to signal to the trade unions when the debt to the public servants will be paid, or for the parties to fashion creative approaches to settling the obligation. They should also remember Justice Anderson's admonition.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.