Orville Taylor | Decent work: always do what’s right

Hungry men cannot work in kitchens. Some 20-plus years ago, I began a body of work focussing on decent work. You see, the problem with ‘bright people’ with myriad degrees like thermometers is that we spend too much time theorising or trying to find facts to match them, even if we have to look with our eyes wide shut. No amount of campaign contribution or funding can compensate for the long-term effect of a set of people who are purposefully abused and denied.

What appealed to me as a young civil servant in the 1980s, while working at the Public Works Department and then the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, was just how simple it was to get industrial peace, in a decade when there were more than 800 reported disputes in one year. Many of them were over dismissals and suspensions that were clearly misuse of power. On multiple occasions, there had to be informal counselling sessions with the aggrieved worker, who was hell-bent on acting like one of our black national heroes or the historic Maroons.

My theories in industrial relations and human resources development came after working in the trenches. Often, workers came into ‘Personnel’, as it was called then, or delegates came to have their matters resolved via conciliation, and all they needed was to have been treated fairly and made to feel that they mattered.

Believe it or not; it is that simple. If a worker genuinely understands that he is wrong or not entitled to something that he initially thought he did, he is very likely to accept the outcome, even if deeply saddened.

Most people are rational and bow to reason. It is only a tiny minority that will be wrong and strong.

Backed by research and data, solid like my 240-pound friend, the deceptively simple formula is as follows: treat workers fairly and pay as good a wage as is possible, allow them to be able to express their grievances, and reward their longevity of service with good termination benefits.

Even without looking at data, isn’t it logical that workers who matter, and I don’t need any side eye here, will perform better and be more committed to their work? Add to that a proper and transparent mechanism whereby workers are able to join trade unions or similar organisations and carry on collective bargaining, with the purpose of preserving or improving the terms and conditions of their employment.

HISTORICAL FACTS

To the Jamaican policymakers and, to a lesser extent, the Jamaican employers, there are some important historical facts. First, Jamaica had the most uprisings by enslaved Africans in this hemisphere. Second, this is the most homicidal democracy in the world. And third, almost all of the major uprisings have been about working-class people being disenfranchised. Indeed, one major finding of the commission appointed to investigate the 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion and 1938 strikes was the lack of proper mechanisms for workers to access justice in the workplace.

Despite the changes in the landscape via the various pieces of labour legislation during the 1970s, the Golden Age of modern industrial relations, there is still too much space for occupational detriment and just plain victimisation. Since the late 1990s, there has been an inverse relationship between collective bargaining and our murder wave. This is fact; not theory.

In this country, despite the protestations to the contrary by some interest groups, it is still too easy for workers to be mistreated and for smug employers or managers to privately or publicly gloat over their misdeeds.

A sombre reminder should be that there is no such thing as absolute power. This country has a long record of victims exacting ‘revenge’ on their employers.

Research over the past decade shows that one of the catalysts behind the increased and persistently high levels of social violence has been the rise in ‘indecent’ work, despite the consistent rise in employment rates.

As unhappy as I am about being right, this was predicted multiple times between 2000 and 2005.

True, there is a direct relationship where, in pursuance of their need to get even, persons take recriminations measures against those who maltreated them. However, that is not how it works most times.

Abuse almost always requires an outlet for the victim. Unless there is intervention to assuage the wounds, within the context of the family or household, an abused worker is likely to abuse his/her spouse or the pre-adult male child.

POOR SERVICE

Public sector workers who are disadvantaged will deliver poor service to the public. While it might be relatively innocuous where a member of the population is applying for an official document, a mistreated police force is the worse nightmare of any country struggling to reduce the murder rate. Similarly, where the workers believe that their service is recognised, appreciated and rewarded, they will go the extra mile.

Last week, I saw two developments in the constabulary which are instructive. On Thursday, the commissioner recognised a large number of its members, who had both long and disciplined service. A commendable and admirable move which was his adopting a best practice from many divisions. It was the first for the force itself.

Second, the Supreme Court advised the high command of its error in a ‘family dispute’, which could have been resolved via respectful communication internally, and sent Police Federation Chairman Rohan James back to work off his interdiction.

Good people make mistakes and more knowledgeable people correct it. The attorney has earned enough money from this case and, with no allegiance to the force, has nothing to lose. Feelings and grudges are dysfunctional in the workplace at large. Even more important, malice and ill will have no place in the House of Babylon.

Dialogue please, there is a war to win.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.