Prime Minister Mia Mottley has defended the Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill, denying any conflict of interest between her administration and the labour movement.
She rebuffed accusations that the government was being heavily influenced by labour unions in the process of crafting the Bill, as debate continued in the House of Assembly on Tuesday.
Mottley also slammed “misogynist” critics who suggested a conflict of interest between the head of the nation’s largest union –Toni Moore who holds the St George North seat for the ruling Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and the leader of the government.
Donville Inniss, the minister for business in the Freundel Stuart administration, had suggested that the Bill was the result of undue influence by a labour union with ties to the government. He said: “Sound government policies cannot and must not be made at the whims and fancies of one labour union, especially when said leadership takes comfort and control within the bosom of the political directorate.”
Pushing back on the suggestion, Mottley said: “How is it now that there is a conflict of interest, that there is a female general secretary and a female prime minister? Let it remain a conflict for the misogynists. There is no progressive political movement or party in any part of the world that does not align itself with the interest of labour.”
She declared that throughout the BLP’s history, legislation passed to protect the rights of workers was never a foreign concept.
“Some have said: ‘Oh you are listening to labour, and you are giving labour what they want’. We are not giving labour what they want, we are giving the country what it needs…decent jobs for decent inclusive growth. This is not something that is alien to our philosophy as a party, or alien to the philosophy of any of us who have grown up in the Barbados Labour Party,” the prime minister said.
While recounting the BLP’s history of supporting the island’s labour movement, she said there has never been any hint of undue influence.
Mottley said: “There was no conflict of interest when it was Grantley Adams and Hugh Springer, two National Heroes; there was no conflict of interest when it was Sir Grantley [Adams] and Sir Frank [Walcott]; there was no conflict of interest when it was the Right Excellent Errol Barrow and Sir Frank; there was no conflict of interest when it was Tom Adams and O’Brien Trotman; there was no conflict of interest when it was Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford and Sir Roy Trotman, or Mr Barrow and Sir Roy Trotman.”
The Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill seeks to establish minimum employment terms and conditions for employees who work for businesses that receive government concessions. The legislation also allows for the suspension of concessions for enterprises that do not comply with the framework legislation.
The strengthening of worker’s protections, according to Mottley, has always been the sole focus of the Bill, stating that anyone benefiting from a government contract or concession must meet a minimum standard.
“We believe that the time has come to set standards and parameters, and in setting these parameters, all that we are saying is if you want a government contract, or you benefit from a government concession, in both instances make sure that you meet the minimum standards for treating workers sector by sector,” she said. “What the legislation simply seeks to do, is to set a framework that allows us to be able to consult and settle what those minimum standards are. It does nothing more and nothing less.”
She stressed that the Bill should not be seen in any way as an attack on the private sector.
“The government is not trying to lash out at the private sector, it’s the contrary,” Mottley told lawmakers. “The government wants the private sector to help us continue to lead growth, but we want growth that is inclusive and growth that is fair. We want a minimum set of conditions for the conduct of business in this country because the country is simply too small to accommodate other than fairness, transparency, and decent work for decent employees in this country.”
The prime minister noted that shortages within the workforce, particularly those in the hospitality industry, have been key indicators that something needed to be done not only to boost numbers but protect the workers who operate in the industry.
“There is a serious shortage of available labour in certain sectors across the economy. We have another reason why there is a shortage as well, which is simply just not having numbers, but when you compound that with people saying ‘no, I’m not going back to a job I had for 20 years, or 22 years, or 15 years, or 10 years’, you have to ask yourself what is happening.
“That is why in the Budget last year I made it clear that we needed to have a conversation between the owners of capital in the hotel industry, and indeed the workers in the sector. Suffice it to say that there are clear problems in the industry and in the sector. It might well be that some of these have been imported, it may well be that some of these are as a result of people trying to do a thing, trying to see what they can get away with, but whatever it is, this government said that it is unacceptable.”
