Dear Editor,
It is time for us, as Guyanese, to seriously examine whether the interests and welfare of ordinary citizens remain at the centre of the decisions being made by those entrusted with leadership. During election periods, citizens are courted with promises of security, opportunity and a better quality of life. However, when difficult decisions are made, it is often ordinary workers and their families who are left to bear the consequences.
The employees of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) now appear to be facing such a situation.
Employees have reportedly been informed by the Head of Human Resources that the Corporation’s Head Office location is to be closed and that persons desirous of remaining employed may be required to relocate to Berbice. If this is indeed the proposed arrangement, it raises serious questions about the future of approximately 350 employees and their families.
Relocation is not a simple matter. Many employees have established their lives in Demerara. They have families, mortgages, children attending school, medical commitments, spouses with established employment and numerous other responsibilities. For some, relocating to Berbice may simply not be a practical option.
What, therefore, becomes of these employees?
Some have dedicated decades of service to GuySuCo. Others have spent virtually their entire working lives serving the sugar industry. They deserve clarity, meaningful consultation and fair consideration before decisions of this magnitude are implemented.
I have previously raised concerns publicly about decisions affecting GuySuCo, including decisions at the executive level. In my view, the Corporation’s current challenges require an honest assessment of its leadership, operational performance and strategic direction rather than measures that may ultimately displace hundreds of workers.
Since the appointment of the current Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Paul Cheong, concerns have been expressed regarding sugar production, sugar quality, tillage and harvesting practices, outstanding payments reportedly owed to employees, and the general state of employee morale. These are matters that deserve careful examination by the Corporation, its Board and the Government.
Likewise, the role of Human Resources must extend beyond administering organizational changes. Human Resources should be at the forefront of ensuring that employees are treated fairly, consulted appropriately and supported through periods of restructuring and uncertainty. When hundreds of livelihoods may be affected, the human consequences cannot become secondary considerations.
There is also a legitimate question as to whether relocating Head Office functions away from Georgetown represents the most practical solution to GuySuCo’s challenges. Head Office comprises functions such as Finance, Procurement, Human Resources, Marketing and other corporate services. The Government and the Corporation should clearly explain the operational and financial justification for relocating these functions and demonstrate how such a move will improve GuySuCo’s overall performance.
Employees and the wider public should also be told what alternatives were considered, what cost-benefit analysis was conducted, how many positions may be affected, and what arrangements will be made for employees who cannot reasonably relocate.
The Government should be particularly mindful of the human consequences of restructuring. GuySuCo is more than factories, estates, fields and financial statements. It is made up of people, many of whom have devoted the better part of their working lives to the Corporation.
In my view, the answer to GuySuCo’s difficulties cannot simply be found in relocating offices or reducing staff. Greater attention must be paid to leadership, accountability, operational efficiency and ensuring that suitably qualified and experienced persons are placed in critical positions.
Having been familiar with the sugar industry for my entire working life, I believe there are experienced professionals whose institutional knowledge and technical capabilities could contribute significantly to GuySuCo’s recovery. I therefore respectfully invite the President and the Government to consider whether a different leadership configuration could produce improved results.
For consideration, I would suggest the following individuals:
Give such a team six months, establish clear and measurable performance targets, and assess the results objectively. Hold each executive accountable for production, quality, cost management, agricultural performance, factory efficiency, employee relations and other agreed indicators.
If there is no meaningful improvement, then the Government would have stronger grounds to consider more substantial structural changes.
But before approximately 350 employees and their families are potentially subjected to significant disruption, every reasonable alternative should be examined.
These employees are not merely numbers on a payroll. They are mothers, fathers, homeowners and breadwinners. They have bills to pay, children to support and families who depend upon them.
GuySuCo undoubtedly faces difficult decisions, but difficult decisions must still be made with transparency, fairness and humanity.
The employees deserve nothing less.