You can now listen to Antigua News articles!
By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor
Much has been said of Labour Day celebrations in Antigua and Barbuda in recent years, and the fact that the two major unions, the Antigua Trades and Labour Union (AT&LU) and the Antigua Barbuda Workers Union (ABWU), hold separate observances in tandem with the major political party with which each is aligned. We think it safe to say that we are past the point as a nation where this trend can be considered an anomaly.
It is often repeated at Labour Day events organised by the AT&LU and the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) that “the unity of labour is the salvation of the country”. Evidently, Labour in this context must not refer to the unity of the labour movement in general in Antigua and Barbuda. It seems fair to say that if the unity of labour is “the salvation” of the country, then the disunity of labour is its damnation.
One would certainly be hard pressed to find anyone, or more specifically, any reasonable person—whose tongue was not tinged with some hue of red or blue—who would argue that there is adequate unity in the labour movement in Antigua and Barbuda at present. What do we mean by unity, though? We are not referring to the simple act of unions coming together on Labour Day, or working together year-round on advocating for workers’ interests.
Were we tasked to define the term “unity of labour”, we would suggest that it ought to describe the existence of a collective consciousness amongst working people as regards their interests—interests such as good pay, decent benefits, but also good governance and effective policies within a democratic society. Such governance and policy should include fair taxation, efficient public administration, just policing, sound economic growth policies, and robust consumer protection.
The term should describe a scenario in which the consciousness of the people of the need for these things cannot be eroded by divisions fomented often by politicians based on party, nationality, language, colour, faith, gender, origin or creed. Where the people are divided on these grounds and their consciousness of their collective interests is diminished as a result, we would call it the disunity of labour.
One of the ways how parties and political leaders have encouraged this disunity in many political contests—not just in Antigua and Barbuda—is by encouraging labour organisations, which naturally have political interests, to deviate from seeking the best interest of members and of working people, and to seek their own interests or the interest of the political party to which their union is aligned instead.
You may not agree, but it is our view that our democracy stands to benefit from a separation between union and state. We aren’t suggesting that this be enforced by law, but perhaps union members themselves need to demand that their organisations adopt polices that restrict the extent to which their leaders involve themselves simultaneously in active party politics, in government-appointed positions such as on boards and in diplomatic posts.
How many Senator General Secretaries have we had? How many Ambassador union Presidents? How many Deputy General Secretary political candidates? How many union leaders line up for their chance to use the platform as a launchpad for a political career, or as a means of sustaining one? In the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew chapter 6, verse 24 is oft quoted in this regard: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
Clearly, the problem the interests of a political party are certainly not always the interests of working people. When unions choose to prioritise their allegiance to political parties over the work of representing the people, it only makes government less accountable, less responsive to the people’s needs, and less interested in innovative and effective polices aimed at inclusive economic growth.
Parties themselves work to disunify labour directly, perhaps not intentionally, but as a result of an intense focus on partisanship and party loyalty alongside patronage as a means of political mobilisation rather than on robust discussions about failed polices, current approaches and new opportunities. Who wants to discuss issues anyway, right? Labour Day, ostensibly the day upon which the labour movement is meant to be recognised, is just a massive fete.
Controversies surrounding Labour Day are not generated by biting critiques launched by workers and their representatives of those elements of the status quo that prevent them from enjoying fair opportunities, but rather, they are generated by the presence or absence of various artistes at different beach fetes. Few are interested in meaningful engagement on anything really.
Why discuss the cost of living? Why discuss the impact of tax policies? Why discuss how tariffs as a means of revenue collection cause inflation that mainly limits the potential of lower-income earners? Why discuss the increase in sales taxes? Why discuss wealth inequality? Why discuss the absence of robust consumer protection in areas such as banking and telecoms? Why discuss the challenges in business start-ups? Why discuss the need for robust and diverse job creation to provide opportunities for school leavers at various levels? Why discuss the dynamics of stagnant population growth?
As a people, we have too often been more interested in political allegiance as a means of securing gains through direct patronage from a successful political party, than we are in ensuring that such gains come from better opportunities provided across the board based on laws and policies that make for a more equitable and just society. This tribalism and this disunity of labour it creates will be the damnation of our country.
A brief look at the term “working class”
Working class is a contested socioeconomic term. It is more often used to describe people with low income, according to one definition on Investopedia. The exact definition of who constitutes the working class varies greatly. In the past era, the term tended to refer to the social group consisting primarily of people employed in unskilled or semi-skilled manual or industrial work. It encompassed masses of people who fit into a social bracket that lacked the opportunities for mobility and the protections that employed people have today.
Of course, over the last century, we have had various industrial, scientific, technological, and commercial revolutions that changed the status quo. Added to that, there has been a revolution in education. These together have created a better-off middle class comprised of many working professionals who would not necessarily meet the definition of working class according to some, and as it has been understood in decades prior. Some consider working class simply to mean employees who are compensated with wage or salary-based contracts. Some may consider working class to mean all those persons who are traditionally represented by labour organisations or fall within categories outside of management in an organisation.
About the writer:
Kieron Murdoch is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. He worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email [email protected].
Another great piece from the man him Mr. Murdoch. The labour union plays a major role in the affairs of a country but unfortunately, society do not see it that way.