In an article of some months ago I expressed the view that amongst Mr. Hughes and his cohorts were those that did not know the difference between a union and an onion. Now, as if to confirm this, the Government took on the Teachers’ Union and by doing so have left no doubt about the validity of that statement in the minds of many persons. They have exposed themselves and their ignorance of the collective bargaining process by their response. Over the last hundred years, under our democratic model, unionism has been part of the democratic process. The short definition of democracy is government of the people by the people. So why is Hughes taking the present mode of attack on the leadership of the Teachers’ Union? On what grounds does he think he is right and Emma Ferguson is wrong? His behaviour and approach towards the solution of the problem reveal dictatorial tendencies. “My way or the highway”! It is a good thing it has happened now, because it paints the picture of what would happen to an Independent Anguilla under a Hughes administration.
The indecency in the manner in which this situation was handled shows a primitive understanding of how governments should function and poor knowledge of Unionism. Nothing was done with class. Everything was “jerked up”. Their behaviour was that of a “bunch of cobblers” pretending to be tradesmen not knowing the first thing about what they are doing. Clearly, it demonstrates that it would be a disastrous move to follow Hughes, in any effort to upset our relationship with the U. K. Mr. Hughes does not have what it takes. His rhetoric and overbearing diatribe tell us he does not understand how to tackle labour disputes. He has missed a golden opportunity to make an impact on the conduct of labour relations in Anguilla. What hampers him is his propensity to curse. This prevents him from making rational assessments and looking deeper into the issues. There are particular problems for Anguilla, because there is no history of dispute management here. There is only peripheral union activity and very little labour law legislation to draw from. This was the chance to overhaul the system. But his “washer-woman” instincts denied Hughes the chance to grab it.
In Anguilla settlement of labour disputes, for the most part, begins and ends at the Labour Commissioner’s Office. It is anachronistic system that needs to be upgraded. It came in use to fill a vacuum at a time when most labour disputes were between sugar estate workers and sugar estate owners. It was a time when a worker could not talk directly to an owner. So beginning in nineteen-fifties the colonial power set up a “referee process” involving the establishment of a Labour Commissioner. That process is inadequate for Anguilla’s needs today. The Teachers’ Union situation was an opportunity to begin to create a new and more useful set-up. But Hughes could not bring his mind to see the issues involved here because he is tied down with “scandal, tra la la, and boo- koo -chukoo”. The public will have to sort that out. However, the immediate aftermath of the Hughes-Union fiasco teaches us that we need newer worker protection and dispute management procedures in the legislation. This administration would easily win the prize for the most scandal riddled and dysfunctional ever. They are the “four blind mice that go up to Governor’s House — have you ever seen such a thing in your life?” Unless there is proper procedure Hughes would always be dipping his mouth in everything and cause little “run of the mill” issues to gain gigantic and disproportionate attention.
The Teachers’ concerns did not have to be dealt the way that they were. If there is no settled procedure the issue should have gone to the Minister of Education, to the Ministry of Finance and to the Executive Council for a definitive solution. A formal and regularized procedure like that would have prevented us from acting like “yahoos”. Hughes keeps on with this low-life behavior over and over. He did it with the reshuffling of permanent secretaries earlier. This is his “modus operandi.” Obviously, it is the only way he knows. You cannot change his attitude now. The change you must make is in the way you vote next time. Send them a message! Tell them that the adage that says “a country deserves the government it gets”, does not apply here under this situation. Anguilla deserves better than Mr. Hughes and his colleagues. He has shown that he has long gone past the level of his own incompetence. Anguilla now needs a leader who is an innovator. Mr. Hughes is not.
Mr. Hughes is an agitator. Let him go now and take with him a copy of Dale Carnegie book, “How to win friends and influence people”. He might learn something about human behavior. He might also understand that when it comes to good administration – anticipation, vision, and the application of rules and proper regulation produce better results than the “toxic reaction” of his style of governing. He must realize that discussing is more progressive than “cussing and fussing”, and it is a way that could help raise the bar in Anguilla. For the length of time that he has been in politics, you would think he has learnt to tone down his rhetoric, particularly when talking in the context of labour relations. He has not, and he should be told to be careful and to use tone and words that cannot be readily interpreted as victimization. A fundamental principle of Unionism is that a worker should be able to complain without fear or threat of negative consequences. Victimization, from any source, is actionable by law and to parade up and down showing pictures of activity at workstations is “intimidation”. It is also unacceptable regardless of whose auspices the pictures are taken.
The fallout from this dispute leaves no doubt about the Chief Minister’s inept leadership role, because here he – is a bungling mumbo-jumbo actor with a tiny role to play — and he can’t handle it. Fellow Anguillians, how then can we take him seriously on such a big issue like Independence? We would have to be crazy — all of us. The recent experience with government teaches us about the high cost of political mistakes, and that we should be mindful of it and not make that mistake again. Mr. Hughes should not have been returned to power. This type of situation can be avoided if we seek professional help from international organizations like the I. L.O. (International Labour Organization). We want to build a nation. Therefore, the time would be better spent on the development of our people and institutions rather than on Monday morning rabble-rousing. The AUF Government recognizes this, and during its term in office supported many scholarships. Now the party understands clearly that it is only by deeper inclusion of the populace that real change will come about. We need the input of the Teachers’ Union; the Police Union; the Civil Service Union and other public and private sector actors to make the changes. Hughes’ failure should be taken as a “wake-up call” for us to change.
But what is troubling, is how Hughes tries to justify the situation surrounding an AUM Minister by making a stupid request to the Governor — in which he makes the comparison with the former Minister Harrigan’s case. His spurious argument is primarily school yard talk and is irrelevant to the allegations spoken about on the street. Obviously, we cannot do as they do. They are not offering anything good. It is time to say goodbye to them.
