Kerzner's Atlantis might have problems... but the sky is not falling

DON'T LISTEN TO THE MESSENGERS OF DOOM

tribune242 editorial

THE SOUND bites being fired off by opposition politicians over the collapse of the Kerzner agreement with its Brookfield creditor gives the impression that they are intent -- in order to deal a mortal political blow to Prime Minister Ingraham-- on striking fear in Kerzner's staff just at a time when the resort is experiencing a favourable turn-around in business.

Although the Kerzner attempt at an ownership transfer failed last week, the current dispute is between creditors, aggrieved that a junior in their midst appears to have outsmarted the remaining six, all senior in the creditor lineup. They feared that Brookfield, in its proposed $175 million debt-for-equity swap, would be the sole beneficiary to any future success of the resort, leaving them empty handed. They appealed to a court in Delaware, which stopped the ownership transfer pending a court hearing. Brookfield, instead of wasting precious time in court, cancelled the Kerzner agreement, in the meantime continuing to try to broker a deal with its fellow lenders.

The Atlantis resort and the One & Only Ocean Club remain in Kerzner hands and under Kerzner management. Kerzner International president, George Markantonis, has repeatedly assured his staff and the public that the Kerzner-Brookfield transaction would in no way affect their jobs. Prime Minister Ingraham has also been given assurances that as far as the present transaction is concerned, Bahamians -- almost 8,000 of them -- have no reason to fear.

What they do not realise is that the debt crisis in Greece -- now tottering on the brink of default -- could create such an economic tsunami that international commerce, including tourism, could grind to a sudden halt. And as everything has a logical conclusion, the results would be -- no tourists, no jobs, no hotels. In these circumstances, employment at Atlantis would suffer a faster after-shock, forcing downsizing more than the present squabbles among Kerzner lenders.

And so, as the Kerzner president has said, not only would the lenders' foreclosing or putting the company into bankruptcy be "very far fetched", but so would the loss of local jobs. At present, said Mr Markantonis, "it's really looking like a nice January... and a strong winter." He hinted that additional staff might even be taken on.

In fact, Atlantis is too big to fail. It would cost more to go into bankruptcy than to keep the hotel open and continue to fight for business with a dedicated -- not a politically spooked staff -- as important members of the team.

Based on a $3 billion valuation of the property stamp tax alone would be $360 million. (See Tribune Business Editor Neil Hartnell's article in today's Business section).

Opposition Leader Perry Christie has berated Prime Minister Ingraham for not telling the Bahamian people on Friday that the Brookfield deal had failed. How could anyone speak on this matter with any authority when no one -- not even the Kerzner team - knew what was going on at that time. Mr Ingraham could have opened his mouth and babbled a lot of nonsensical platitudes that might have sounded good, but would have meant nothing because he -- like everyone else -- knew nothing. A wise man does not open his mouth unless he is sure of what he is going to say. This was a fight among lenders as they saw a lucrative deal about to slip through their fingers.

Mr Christie accused Mr Ingraham of not fighting for Bahamian jobs. How could Mr Ingraham enter the debate until he received an application from Brookfield for the government's approval of the transaction? It was at that point that he could have had his say and presented Bahamian demands, but before Mr Ingraham could properly read the application, Brookfield withdrew it. What did Mr Christie want Mr Ingraham to do -- fly to wherever the creditors were meeting, kick the door in and demand an audience? The idea, although ridiculous, is good political fodder for the ignorant. Mr Christie knows he is just making political noise. If he sincerely wanted to save Bahamian jobs he would stop ringing alarm bells.

And if Atlantis employees really want to save their jobs they will close their ears to "the sky is falling" myths and avoid the disaster into which Chicken Little led his friends by his false alarm.

According to the nursery rhyme, a very foolish Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on his tail. The silly little chick decided that the sky was falling, and so he ran to alert all his farmyard friends. When he told Henny Penny, she wanted to know how he knew that the sky was falling in. "I saw it with my eyes," said Chicken Little. "I heard it with my ears. Some of it fell on my tail." "We will run," said Henny Penny, "and tell the king." They lined up three more friends, frightening them into action with the same end-of-the-world story. Eventually, they came to the den of Foxy Loxy, who listened to the sky is falling in tale, and told them: "We will run," he said. "We will run into my den, and I will tell the king."

They ran into Foxy Loxy's den, But they did not come out again!

And that is just what will happen to Atlantis staff if they pay serious attention to all of these Chicken Littles, Henny Pennys, Turkey Lurkeys, Ducky Luckys and Goosey Looseys running around in today's political arena ringing false alarm bells.

Atlantis might have problems, but so far the sky has not fallen in.

January 20, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Is there political ideology or philosophy in Bahamian politics? ...Is Hubert Ingraham a conservative? ...Is Perry Christie a liberal? ...Is Branville McCartney a centrist? ...Who knows? ...Fellow Bahamians - It is important to know the political philosophy of parties and their leaders

Is there political ideology or philosophy in Bahamian politics?

thenassauguardian editorial

We now know almost all the election candidates of the three parties with representation in the House of Assembly.  The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) have selected all the men and women who will run under their respective banners.  The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has a few more to chose.

What is interesting is that each of the parties have a few candidates who have run for, or been supporters of, other parties.  There are some interesting examples.

For the PLP, Dr. Andre Rollins was a candidate in 2010 at the Elizabeth by-election for the National Development Party, and Dr. Bernard Nottage (the current Bain and Grants Town MP) led the Coalition for Democratic Reform against the PLP in the 2002 general election.

For the FNM, Cassius Stuart was the leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement.  His colleagues on the FNM ticket Kenyatta Gibson, Edison Key and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham are all former PLP MPs.

Dr. Madlene Sawyer, the DNA candidate for Southern Shores, was a former head of the PLP women’s branch.  Her DNA colleague Wallace Rolle ran for the PLP in the 2007 general election.  The DNA candidate for Bains Town and Grants Town, Rodney Moncur, was the leader of the obscure Worker’s Party before joining the DNA.  And Branville McCartney, the party’s leader, was a former FNM MP and Cabinet minister.

These are just a few prominent examples of the flow of people in Bahamian politics.  There are other candidates in the major parties who have been strong supporters of organizations opposed to the groups they are currently with.

What does it all mean?  Well, some would say nothing, as politicians in countries around the world change party affiliation all the time.  But, it could also be argued that the flow of people from party to party, running under any banner, exists here because there is little to no philosophical difference between the organizations.

In fact, it would be hard to use any traditional economic or political philosophy to describe any of the Bahamian political parties.  Could you describe the PLP, DNA or FNM as left or right wing, conservative or liberal?  No, you could not.

For example, in the 2012 Republican presidential race in the United States candidate Ron Paul is a libertarian.  Paul has very different view of the world from 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is a social democrat.  Libertarians are suspicious of the state and argue for small government and low rates of taxation.  Social democrats think the state and taxation should be used to advance social justice.

It is important to know the political philosophy of parties and their leaders.  When parties and leaders have strong beliefs, they bring forward policies that change the lives of people in distinct ways.  A libertarian would essentially eliminate welfare.  They do not think the wealth of individuals should be taken away by the state to be given to others with less wealth.

Social democrats always want more taxation to advance some Utopian social program to ‘help’ people.  The business climate changes significantly when one of these politicians is elected, as opposed to the other.

Is Hubert Ingraham a conservative?  Is Perry Christie a liberal?  Is Branville McCartney a centrist?  Who knows?  Lately, our elections have been run on management style.  Essentially, this is the essence of the debate: “I am a better man than you.  Vote for me.”

A cynic could argue that it is difficult to pin down the political philosophy of our parties and politicians because they have none.  Instead, they simply seek power to dispense the authority and wealth of the state.  The voters then choose the person they think most able, and that’s that.  The better manager manages things in a better ad hoc manner not under any recognizable system of ideals.

If this type of politics is good enough for the people, it will continue.  For something else to evolve the people would have to demand more of the process and the people involved.

Jan 20, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Bishop Neil Ellis is right... there are more than three demons destroying The Bahamas... but the main ones are the ones he decided to drag across the coals Monday night -- sexual immorality, financial instability and witchcraft

BISHOP ELLIS IS RIGHT - SOCIAL ILLS MEAN DESTRUCTION

tribune242 editorial



IN THIS column yesterday, we jested about Bishop Neil Ellis' theatrical announcement of how, as God's chosen messenger, he was sent to warn Bahamians that the world's three greatest vices, in the form of demons, had landed on our shores and were holding this country "hostage."

Jumping Jehosephat! News enough to make the faint-hearted jump out of bed and take to the hills. But that is not where the bishop wanted Bahamians to take themselves. The bishop was dead serious. He wanted them shivering in fright, not in the hills, but in Mount Tabor Full Gospel Baptist Church in Pinewood Gardens. The demons were so devilishly evil that he daren't mention their names outside the sanctified halls of Mount Tabor. And only those who attended the church and filled the parking lot would get God's message first hand from his special messenger - Bishop Neil Ellis himself.

We must admit that the Bishop's promotion was superb. He built the suspense up to a crescendo, until his church and parking lot were filled. Up went the song. The show was on. At the end of the service, it is certain that the church's coffers were also generously filled.

But seriously now, Bishop Ellis is right, there are more than three demons destroying this country, but the main ones are the ones he decided to drag across the coals Monday night -- sexual immorality, financial instability and witchcraft.

Sexual immorality -- nothing new, been with us for a long time, as a matter of fact Adam and Eve were the ones who stole the apple from the garden and passed their sin down through the generations. Here in the Bahamas, it goes under several names, the most popular being "sweethearting".

We recall overhearing an interview being conducted at The Tribune when we were quite young. The person being interviewed was telling how a baby, in or out of wedlock -- particularly out of wedlock -- was a West Indian thing. That child was treated as a woman's insurance for her old age. At least she had someone to look after her when she was past it. This struck our puritanical nature so strange at the time that it is the only part of that interview that we remember.

About 87 years ago, our mother landed in the Bahamas for the first time from the hills of Pennsylvania. Although a young teacher, it was the first time that she had seen an ocean, islands, beaches, coconut trees, and many other things. The first landing was at Mathew Town, Inagua, where an election was in full swing and her husband was one of the candidates. As a good wife, she went off on her own to talk with the people. When she and Sir Etienne Dupuch met again later in the day, she was troubled by a recurrent answer that she got whenever she asked a man how many children he had.

"Etienne," she said, "tell me what is this 'inside' and 'outside' thing. Every man that I asked how many children he had would say, x number inside, and y number outside, and there was always more on the y side than the x side. What did they mean?" Poor, innocent Mum, she never lived that one down. But by the time she arrived from Inagua to Nassau on the mail boat she had the answer-- she had learned about Inagua's many inside and outside children.

A few years ago, a young doctor told us that the maternity ward of the Princess Margaret Hospital was like a factory churning out babies into the bleakest of environments -- the nation's future social problems. It was a maternity ward where babies were having babies, where young girls were on their third or fourth child, each with a different father. It was shocking to identify some of these men, some of them already married, who were producing these "outside" families.

When we were a child, everyone was poor. It was no sin to be poor, and no one seemed to envy his neighbour -- certainly not to the extent that we see today's avarice satisfied at any price. At least growing up, money did not seem all that important. Wasn't Sir Etienne, our father, often turning down advertising because it offended some principle, at the same time, we heard him worry out loud about where he was going to find the few pence needed in those days to pay our small staff. We even watched when his largest advertiser arrived at his editorial door one day to cancel his advertising because he disapproved of a series of editorials Sir Etienne was writing about liquor stores being built, not only near churches, but in our poorest communities to undermine "our good people".

Before the advertiser could finish his sentence, Sir Etienne had cancelled his advertising and ordered him from his premises. Of course, he had to meet payroll at the end of the week. We do not know how he did it, but somehow he survived. So we grew up believing that money was not all that important. However, what was important was to use our lives to honestly serve the Bahamian people through this newspaper. We were not here to fill our own pockets, and so when business has to be turned down even today, it is turned down.

But in the sixties, attitudes changed. The drug era was around the corner and success was measured by material wealth. Bahamians were told that there was nothing stopping them becoming millionaires, and with the temptation of drug money coming in, nothing did. No matter how uncouth or unlearned a man was he was soon in if he had the trappings of wealth -- however earned. The younger generation looked up to their big brothers, daddys and uncles and measured success by their fast cars, the gold chains jangling from their necks and gaudy rings on their fingers. Youngsters were writing school essays describing how their ambition in life was to be a drug smuggler like their uncle or cousin, or some other member of the family or friend. That's what heroes were made of in those days.

This is when one of Bishop Ellis' demons really took hold and spawned the crime that we see on the streets today. We remember in those days - the seventies and eighties -- former Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Thompson, now retired, predicting that if something were not done at that time to curb the trend we would be battling the very crime that is today destroying our way of life.

In this, Bishop Ellis is right. This is one demon that has to be overcome by a community that has gone astray, never forgetting that many among them set the pace for today's problems.

January 19, 2012

- Bishop Neil Ellis of Mount Tabor Full Gospel Baptist Church warned that there are three demons that are holding The Bahamas hostage... and can only be exorcised with prayer... ... The demons are sexual immorality, financial instability and witchcraft -


- Bishop Neil Ellis and his 'message' from God -


tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Wallace Rolle, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party ...and the change of more of the same

By Dennis Dames:



I have today listened to Mr. Wallace Rolle, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) candidate for South Beach on Issues of the day. The gentleman appears to be a Utopian of the first order. He gives the impression that he and his party have all the solutions to our ills; like with a DNA victory - all lights will be turned on, unemployment will be eradicated, no one would lose their house, and the hurting that we the people are experiencing just now will be no more.

Mr. Rolle stopped short of promising that the tears from every Bahamian eye will be eliminated under a Democratic National Alliance administration.

He says that we need to diversify our economy. What does this mean? Agriculture and fisheries are already on the move, the Bahamian craft industry has received a major boost with the new straw market policy, and opportunities galore exist for young and the not so young entrepreneurs.

We need to legitimize the numbers business to enhance the nation’s revenue base. We need to look at the LNG question with a view of making a final decision; it looks like a new and potent income stream that could propel our country’s ambition to bring every brother and sister in the fold of economic prosperity. Our problem today is that we are not collecting enough income to pay our national bills; so our hands are tied when it comes to new initiatives right now.

Mr. Rolle spoke of the unemployment concerns of his young constituents, but his status quo and politically correct position is that they will fill every vacancy with a Bahamian who is qualified to perform the job. How will that position solve our unemployment challenges?

If a Democratic National Alliance government borrows funds from a foreign bank for capital works, and the bank insists that XYZ Company from Brazil has to be the general contractor with its hundreds of employees; what will they do? If every international bank relates the similar requirements, where would that leave the country? We would be drowning in our own inanity.

If an international business comes to The Bahamas with tens of millions of dollars in investments and they want to bring in their foreign CEO and comptroller, what will a DNA government do if they feel that Bahamians could fill those positions? Here is where a Bahamian first policy becomes dangerous and counter-productive to national economic development.

We need to personally and collectively take control of our destiny. If we are profoundly divided as a people, then there is nothing a new politician or representative could do for us. Lingering and deep-rooted disunity are holding back our progress as a people, and we must find our respective love button and come together for the common good.

A monumental policy was instituted in our straw market recently, where all goods must be Bahamian made. This decision alone could indirectly employ thousands of our people as the craft market is a forty million dollars a year plus industry. Every young talented Bahamian could take advantage of the opportunity by creating one great Bahamian souvenir item to sell to straw vendors; but opposition politicians would have none of it. As far as they are concerned, the governing Free National Movement (FNM) is simply good for nothing; and they insist on being their constituents employment agents. Yes, even the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) wants to control the people of whom they seek to represent.

It’s called the change of more of the same.

caribbean Blog International

Young politicians should be careful and not get too caught up in the excitement of the moments to come in the upcoming general election... selling dreams they cannot deliver

Candidates should not make unrealistic promises

thenassauguardian editorial

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM) have selected their candidates to run in the upcoming general election.  The fledgling Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is almost done with its candidate selection process.  Several independent candidates have also entered the various constituency races, such as Whitney Bastian in Mangrove Cay and South Andros and Craig Butler in Bamboo Town – and more are likely to emerge soon.

Some of these men and women who are running have been campaigning for years to win a constituency seat.  Some will begin that effort in the next few weeks.  The people will decide who will be successful and who will be forgotten.

To win, some go all out and make every promise possible.  The candidate pledges to fix every road in the area; to make sure every park is maintained; to find jobs for hundreds of people; to visit regularly after being elected; to make sure the community schools are without a need.

Campaigning is hard; winning is harder.  To do so you have to convince thousands of people you and your party are best equipped to run the country.  Telling people you will do everything for them may get you more votes.  But candidates must remember that if they win, those same people will be expecting them to deliver.

The life of that candidate could become miserable if he or she is unable to fulfill the promises made on the campaign trail.  If the candidate is elected for a governing party but has little power in the caucus, that member would have little capacity to deliver on anything for his or her area.  If elected for the opposition party, good luck getting the government to rush to your assistance in an opposition constituency.  And if the governing party does something in that area, it will tell the people it did it and not the opposition MP.

Reasonable and moderate pledges would be better for candidates and constituents.  Set out those issues of importance to the community and suggest cost-effective solutions.  Also, let the electorate know that if things don’t go well and the party does not win government, you would fight the good fight in public and in private for resources for the constituency.

Being a good public servant is also about telling people what is not possible or easily achieved.  Governments have limited resources.  They cannot tackle everything at once and some priorities deemed less critical might have to be ignored until a time comes when the capacity exists to address them.

When politicians keep promising and not delivering, they lose their credibility.  Voters eventually stop listening to the words of such people.

There are many people who are hurting in The Bahamas now due to the economic conditions that have persisted since the financial crisis of 2008.  The national jobless rate was last measured at 13-plus percent.  It may seem clever to bamboozle desperate people at election time for power.  Power attained in this manner is fleeting and no politician will build a long and successful career based on not being reliable.

Young politicians should be careful and not get too caught up in the excitement of the moments to come in the upcoming elections, selling dreams they cannot deliver.

Jan 18, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

...the enduring legacy of majority rule in The Bahamas

Majority Rule at 45

Front Porch

By Simon

The success of great political events and movements inspire all manner of grandstanding by secondary figures who played tangential or minor roles in such events.  As often, those who played more critical roles, and are disinclined to preen and prance, are not given their fuller due.

Thankfully, in the light of greater historical accuracy, the pretensions of the airbags desperately attempting to inflate themselves into great leaders are often deflated.  And, the extraordinary contributions of the great men and women of history are recorded for accuracy and posterity.

Three events of the past few weeks highlighted aspects of the struggle for and legacy of majority rule.  They include the 45th anniversary of January 10, 1967, the passing of Sir Clifford Darling, and the opportunity for ordinary Bahamians to own shares in the new Arawak Port Development (APD).

At the inauguration of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. this past October, U.S. President Barack Obama chastised the negativity and cynicism of those who sought to downplay the accomplishments of the civil rights movement for racial equality.

As America’s first black president, the credibility of his claim was incontestable.  Obama further noted that there was still considerable work to be done to achieve Dr. King’s dream.

The same may be said of the achievements of majority rule in The Bahamas: We have accomplished much, yet there is significant work to be done.  To boost his political stock, a rapidly diminishing public figure continues to dismiss the enduring legacy of majority rule.

 

Mindset

Sir Clifford’s funeral was the opportunity for a religious figure to fall into the same either/or mindset with a diatribe that ignored many of the accomplishments of majority rule.  Thankfully, that harangue was vitiated by the oratory of Governor General Sir Arthur Foulkes in his tribute at Sir Clifford’s state funeral.

Sir Arthur and Sir Clifford played significant roles in the advancement of majority rule and in national development.  Humble men, not given to grandstanding, both assumed the high office of governor general.  And, both shared a confidence in the country’s future captured in a moving recollection of Sir Arthur’s: “I assured him [Sir Clifford] that in my recent travels around our Bahamas I had seen future generations of Bahamians full of promise, young Bahamians who will become social, commercial, cultural and political leaders, Bahamians who will value and build upon the legacy that he and others had bequeathed.  The man from Chester’s, Acklins, smiled.”

This January 10, the country again celebrated the expansion and deepening of democracy in The Bahamas.  Unfortunately, the Progressive Liberal Party continues to treat the event as its singular achievement, and the Free National Movement studiously avoids joining in the annual celebrations.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. always appreciated that the civil rights movement was about political empowerment and economic opportunity.  In 1963, he led a small march in an all-white enclave in Chicago to protest inequality in housing and other areas of economic life.  The protestors were attacked and Dr. King struck in the head.

Reflecting on the march, he observed that gaining political rights might be the easier part.  He appreciated that gaining economic power from entrenched interests would be a more difficult and longer process.

Many of the progressives in the struggle for majority rule appreciated the same reality.  Surprisingly, the early ambitions of some of these progressives to dismantle the economic monopolies of the Bay Street Boys were thwarted by their more reactionary colleagues in the fight for a majority government.

Change often takes time and comes about in surprising ways.  Hubert Ingraham’s rise from poverty to become prime minister is a testament to his own talents and ambition.   Still, his rise would not have been possible without the opportunities afforded him because of the achievement of majority rule.

 

Progressive

The prime minister is a man of complexity and paradox.  It has made him a pragmatist.  He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  He utilizes capitalist-based measures to advance an extraordinarily progressive economic agenda.

Ingraham grew up in an Abaco where white privilege and supremacy were the order of the day.  He took over the leadership of the FNM, the supposedly more economically conservative major party, which counted some of the former members of the defunct United Bahamian Party among its members.

On the eve of this year’s majority rule anniversary, amidst the charged and often self-serving rhetoric that accompanies the 10th day of January, Ingraham held a press conference.

On January 9, 2012, he announced that his government was nearing the final stages of the dismantling of the near monopolistic control of the port business by a few families.  These families included some of those Bay Street Boys from whom political power had to be wrested.

Not only is Ingraham dismantling many decades of entrenched economic domination in port ownership in New Providence.  He is also transferring some of that wealth and the opportunity for wealth-creation to the Bahamian people.  There are chapters still to be written in the Quiet Revolution.

Jan 17, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders ...some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent

WHOSE INTEREST DO UNION LEADERS REPRESENT?

tribune242 editorial




LOOKING over The Tribune's Labour files a few days ago we came across an interesting statement by hotel managerial union leader Obie Ferguson, who accused Freeport's Our Lucaya Beach resort of "union busting" by planning to lay off 50 managerial staff.

"Now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he told The Tribune, "I thought that now would be the time to do what should be done. Workers' rights are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do."

Mr Ferguson made this statement in January last year at a time when in the estimation of every business person on the island - especially in Freeport -- the economy was looking even bleaker. And so we do not know how Mr Ferguson measures economic recovery. Maybe he had a glimpse of the hotel's financial statements and from that concluded that the hotel could support what he claimed "had to be done" and still keep its doors open.

At the time, Mr Ferguson was pressing Minister Dion Foulkes for permission for his union, which he said represented more than 100 of the resort's staff, to take a strike vote that would pave the way for disruptive action at the property.

Meanwhile, Nicole Martin, whose union represented the same hotel's line staff, was worried about increases she said were owed to the line staff under their industrial agreement. Earlier, the resort had announced that its Christmas season was not as good as hoped. It had told the union that since 2009 it was not in a financial position to meet those demands.

Earlier, it was acknowledged that the resort's owners, Hutchinson-Whampoa, had been subsidising the hotel's payroll. Prime Minister Ingraham had even praised the company for its supportive attitude towards the hotel and its staff during difficult financial times.

But Mr Ferguson must have had a vision. He saw things differently and thought it was time for some union muscle flexing.

When we read his statement, we could not help but think of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Although blind, and having to rely on touch alone, each had to "satisfy his mind" as to what an elephant looked like.

The first fell against the broad sturdy side of the elephant and decided it "is very like a wall." The second felt the tusk and decided it was like a "spear." And so on down the line -- the squirming trunk felt like a snake; the knee felt like a tree; the ear felt like a fan and the sixth was convinced that the swinging tail was "very like a rope".

And so the dispute began, each convinced as to what an elephant looked like and "though each was partly in the right... all were in the wrong!"

As none of them had seen the whole elephant, despite their arguing none of them knew what an elephant really looked like.

And so with these unionists, who although they never see the whole picture and do not know what obligations have to be met before salary increases can be considered, are always convinced that owners can and should meet their demands.

At present, Kerzner International is fighting to meet its financial obligations. It has a good management team that will do everything in its power to maintain staff levels and also meet its debts. Those debt obligations are extremely high. If they are not met, unless some agreement can be arrived at, the Kerzner team could lose its four-year management contract. And so, staff will have to be thankful for their jobs, and turn deaf ears to any demands that their union might tempt them to take during this difficult period. Even if they see every rooms filled to capacity every day of the year, unions nor staff can assume -- like the six blind men of Indostan -- that the hotel is making a handsome profit, and that there is any room for staff to make more.

We do not understand some of these union leaders. They complain that Freeport has no business and yet when organisations are trying to attract business, the union decides to demonstrate. For example, what possessed Freeport hotel workers to demonstrate at Grand Lucaya resort on the very day Vision Airlines and the Ministry of Tourism were hosting 80 travel agents and other tourism promoters from the United States? The visitors were invited there for a two-day familiarization trip in the hopes that they would recommend more visitors to fill the hotel. Imagine the very people who would benefit from a hotel full of guests, would decide instead to drive potential business away by demonstrations. Who can have sympathy for such short-sighted people?

And to add insult to injury their union leader had the nerve to pull another demonstration to complain that the 37 workers who scuttled an attempt to get more business for the hotel were fired.
Just where are these people coming from? From an outsider looking in, it seems that some unionists have a different agenda. Are they deliberately leading their members astray?

Who is going to sympathise with any worker who is going to undermine the efforts of people who are trying to bring more business to a resort to secure their jobs?

If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent.

January 16, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International