I am flattered by the many inquiries I received over the last week regarding the absence of my column in at least two issues of The Anguillian this year. I want to assure my readers that the statements by AUM sympathizers and supporters that I should stop writing had nothing to do with it. Neither was it for lack of topics or subjects on which to comment. It simply was a result of my being overseas on a quality vacation — and the challenges associated with time zones; internet service; and some breakdowns with my own equipment. I am however encouraged by the fact that a number of other writers like Tyrone Hodge, Ashton Bradley, Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles, Sutcliffe Hodge, Conrad Rogers, Pastor James Harrigan and others, including anonymous letters to the editor, are contributing to what I hope will revive interest in the print media as a source of responsible social commentary. In short, encourage more people to read the views and opinions of such writers through a medium that practically forces them to be more accountable for their statements. It is so much easier to be challenged in the print media for things that one writes — that one goes to “great pains” not to be defamatory; libelous; or false.
Over the almost three years that I have been submitting articles to The Anguillian, one of the most frequent criticisms that I have received, even from some of my own supporters, has been that my columns are too long. This can appear to be a fair criticism given the fact that communication is more effective when it is precise and to the point. But I sometimes wonder how it is, that that same person will sit down and listen to a “talk show” rife with gossip and loud and abusive statements for over two hours, and yet will not take five minutes to read an article in the newspaper. Unlike listening to a “talk show” where if you were to step out of the room you could miss something “important” — with a newspaper article you can put it down and come back to it later. In other words, you can read it in as many sittings as you wish. To my mind, this convenience and the propensity to be responsible and accountable are clear advantages of the print media that should be embraced.
It is my penchant for fairness in the statements and positions I seek to communicate that led me to choose the print media as my channel of communication to the citizens of Anguilla. As I said in my “Two and a half years later” Article of August 17, 2012: “I could have chosen other platforms, like the “blogs” and the other social media to do so — but I decided that as a matter of principle I would continue to do what I have done in politics all my life: Speak the truth and be fair in the statements I make! I would not descend to using the cloak of social media where many people post irresponsible statements and lies in a very cowardly and dishonest manner. Anything I have written in The Anguillian newspaper is under my own name. I am fully responsible for what I have written — and I remain prepared to stand fully behind the statements I have made. However, if unwittingly, I misrepresent the truth and anyone — I am fully aware of the recourse to legal action that is available to them!”
It is against this background of responsibility and accountability, as a political leader, that I must comment on the response of elected representatives of the people of Anguilla to the exercise of “the right to protest” by the Teachers’ Union on February 15, 2013. The entire issue has been well documented and, in addition to the several comments on the various “talk shows” for and against this act of civil disobedience, the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Evans McNiel Rogers, made an impassioned speech both in support of the Teachers’ Union and against the ugly issues relating to the abusive statements made about expatriate teachers. A number of the statements by these elected and appointed officials were made in a cowardly fashion in the shelter of the Anguilla House of Assembly, where many citizens should now be aware is the place of choice for this AUM Government to make abusive, slanderous and defamatory statements against persons who are not in a position to defend themselves. You would not have heard a single one of those statements repeated by any of those officials on the radio or in the newspaper. But the Chief Minister took the opportunity to reduce the issue to another one of his conspiracy theories in an effort to discredit the action by the Teachers’ Union in the eyes of the Anguillian public. It is this shameless display of “hypocrisy in politics” on which I wish to comment.
I wish you all to bear in mind that the Chief Minister’s claim to fame is that he has anointed himself as the champion of the working classes. In fact for over fifty years he has been telling us that while in the UK he was a “Shop Steward” for his Union. A Shop Steward is a union member elected to represent co-workers in dealing with management and employers. The Shop Steward’s job is to: – a) Monitor and enforce the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. b) Ensure that Management/Employer is compliant with all the laws and regulations applicable to worker-management relationship. c) Represent and defend fellow workers in the event of both their grievances and charges made against them by management. d) Communicate and disseminate information relevant to policies and procedures in the workplace. e) Popularize and promote union consciousness and values in the workplace. And f) Negotiate on behalf of the workers: on benefits, wages, compensation and terms of service. In a nutshell, unlike the rest of his colleagues the Chief Minister cannot claim to be unaware of the role of Unions and Union Officials in the collective bargaining process. Why then as a strong proponent of unionism, and as a self-proclaimed champion of the workers, he seeks to denigrate the officials of the Anguilla Teachers’ Union in the dispatch of their responsibilities to their membership? After all, the teachers do have a right, if they feel that they are being slighted by the Government, to use the collective bargaining approach to bring them to the negotiating table.
The history of the issue is that in July 2009, the past Government had realized that the recession was taking hold for a longer period of time than they expected. It therefore decided that it should impose a number of austerity measures to include reduction in the salaries of all Government personnel. This action was taken quickly and, quite frankly, without adequate consultation. As a result the staff associations/unions protested. Government therefore admitted to the highhandedness of its action without making any public battle. It then explained that the reduction would be for six months in the first instance and then, since things were expected to improve, it gave a written undertaking to reimburse public officers later.
Six months later the situation did not improve and bearing in mind the election of 2010, Government only extended the period for another three months. I believe that it is important to make this point because the present Government continues to give the impression that the past Government committed to the agreement indefinitely. In these circumstances, it was well within this Government’s power to establish a reasonable cut off date, ideally at least eighteen months ago. As a consequence the reimbursement package could have been at least half of what it is today. Based on the goodwill that the AUM Government seems to have established with the Executive of the Civil Service Association this could have been negotiated.
What the Chief Minister has done is to give the impression that the Anguilla Teachers’ Union (ATU) is a callous group only concerned about money, and then in another breath suggests that the whole scheme was designed to trigger a state of emergency and the bringing in of a British military ship. And then, as usual, he accepts absolutely no blame or responsibility for not being able to negotiate a settlement because he claims he has no authority to do so. He advises the ATU “to take its case to the Governor because HE is responsible for the public service not Hubert Hughes”.
One wonders why the Chief Minister ran for Office if he cannot negotiate for his own citizens in matters for which he is clearly responsible. The Governor does not pay anyone in the Public Service. It is the local Government that pays. The Chief Minister and Minister of Finance is the person who must make the case and lead the discussion on this issue in the same manner that he carried out his responsibilities as a “shop steward” when he was in the UK. There is absolutely no reason why there should not be a clear position on the way forward right now. That position must also include a tangible gesture on the part of Government. This matter will not go away. It will only increase. The Government has wasted over two years in addressing this issue by simply blaming it on the past Government. Not to mention engaging lawyers unnecessarily to determine whether it could avoid meeting its commitment.
The Chief Minister also resorted to half-truths and lies to embellish his story. For example, he claims that: “the European Union which is the only aid donor to Anguilla, is in such serious financial trouble that children do not get breakfast to attend school.” What the heck is he talking about? How does this relate to the issue at hand? How can he be so irresponsible to use such general statements about a vast community like the EU to fabricate fear and alarm? He then goes on to accuse the ATU leaders for having party political motives — to destabilize his Government. And he concludes by trying to paint the ATU leadership as the villains who need to apologize to Anguillians for taking industrial action. Yet another display of ruthless disregard and intolerance for the fundamental rights of groups and individuals who hold any views or opinions contrary to the Chief Minister, his colleagues and supporters. In fact, the Chief Minister seemed to be trying to pit the other Unions against the ATU by suggesting that they do not support their action against Government. In other words encourage them to be “scabs”. A “scab” being a Union member or non-Union member who crosses a picket line or agrees to work for lesser pay or conditions than those proposed by the Union.
In the next two weeks it will be three years since the Chief Minister has been abdicating his responsibility to the British Government, the Governor and the AUF Party. Up to this date one cannot clearly ascertain what he has been elected to do besides stumble from crisis to crisis and travel the world boasting that he is determined to lead his people into Independence like Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela and Jomo Kenyatta. One wonders how he can reconcile his boasts about being able to handle the British Government, with his record of failure over almost fifty years in politics. And most of all, how can he continue to claim to be the champion of the workers when, after three years in office, he has not been able to fulfill any of his promises to enact legislation and regulations to protect the workers – and now seems bent on destroying the collective bargaining methods that have been serving them for many decades. One must seriously investigate whether he was a “shop steward” or a “scab”!
