Dear Editor,
There is a video circulating on Facebook showing Guyanese workers being fired by a Chinese company building one of our schools. There is also the very upsetting issue of workers not receiving their promised pay at GuySuCo, and most importantly the ongoing issue of the nonpayment of the cash grant, which is now being declared as unsustainable. Overall, the concern for workers’ rights is declining and promises made by politicians are turning out to be less than dependable.
When a compensation agreement is made it should reflect the taxes owed to the government and employers should be insisting on NIS contributions so workers are able to gain a pension after they retire. Foreign and local companies should be held accountable for making sure that our workers’ rights are protected. Unfortunately, this has not been happening, and the Ministry of Labour must take the necessary action against the companies involved. For transient workers, policies must be put in place to protect their rights.
Guyanese workers are starting to point out that they are being replaced by Spanish workers who will do the same work for less pay. Companies are taking advantage of these refugees and not paying the required amount to the government due to poor documentation of these workers. An issue that must be corrected as soon as possible.
As for the promised compensation at GuySuCo and the long awaited cash grant, politicians must be held accountable for their failure to deliver. GuySuCo is dependent on their workers and any decision to change compensation should be agreed to prior to an announcement and a formal contract must be made with the Union to ensure the compensation of workers is budgeted for.
More importantly, the underlying issue affecting our workforce is the increase in the cost of living, which can be reduced with reduced government spending and increased saving rates offered at the banks to help control inflation. The President has recently complained over the lack of dependable labour to staff the multitude of government projects being undertaken. By reducing the level of government spending to match the availability of labour a higher level of dependable labour will result and those who truly desire to work will make themselves available for any additional work.
A 35% turnout rate as mentioned by the President should be reflected in the reduction of government expenditure for 2026. Thus, resulting in 35% to 50% less unskilled labour (work requiring minimal training) dependent projects being undertaken during this fiscal period.
The issue of the nonpayment of the cash grant is a major one, and for the President to say that it is not sustainable is quite a surprise. CRG respectfully disagrees with His Excellency on this matter. As previously stated, with prudent investment of the NRF funds the gains will easily sustain an annual cash grant programme for the long term, and as the fund increases in value the required returns significantly reduce. We must also keep in mind the economic multiplier that occurs from the injection of these funds from the cash grant into the economy. The benefits are substantial and will help to continue to foster economic growth.
The government does regain a substantial level of funds from such economic activity via taxes. The spending on infrastructure must be balanced with the needs citizens have for more disposable income. The use of the funds within the NRF should be a key item of discussion in the upcoming budget debate, and the budget must reflect an investment posture that enables an annual cash grant, increased growth of the NRF and prudent achievable investment in critical infrastructure.