When did the unions purchase BTC?
tribune242 editorial
TODAY MANY Bahamians are confused. They would like to know when the unions purchased the public's telecommunications company, which would give them the right to say whether the company can be sold and to whom.
As far as the public is aware those making the noise in the public square are employees of a publicly owned company with a contract of service that can be terminated by either side to that contract. In other words a union's only argument should be about the employment of its members and the terms of that employment, certainly not about the ownership of the company. However, if unionists believe they have an entitlement -- over an above their contract of service -- then they should bring their papers and publicly prove their point. Otherwise, it is the government -- not the unions-- that was elected to represent the Bahamian people. And it is the people, represented by their MPs in parliament, who will have the final say on the sale of BTC.
Bernard Evans, president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union, who has taken the union's fight to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has claimed the government was in violation of an ILO convention which calls for the government to engage workers in a "transparent manner to discuss issues of life-changing effect."
How can the union leader support this complaint when he was on the BTC privatisation committee where the matter was discussed and recommendations made to government, and when the Prime Minister himself met with union executives and invited them to meet for discussions with the proposed new owner's chief executive officer? It is understood that at the meeting with the Prime Minister, although the union leaders expressed their displeasure at Cable and Wireless as the new owners, they at least agreed to meet with the company's CEO for a discussion.
David Shaw, CEO of Cable and Wireless, flew in specially for that discussion. The union sent its regrets.
They complain that no one will talk with them, that they do not know what is going on, that what is being done to them is "wicked and intentional" because government never truly wanted them to be "a participant in that discussion." How can there be a discussion if one side to that discussion refuses to come to the table? How can doubts and fears be discussed and removed if a reasonable discussion cannot take place? Bullying tactics will not succeed. The louder they shout in the public square, the more support they lose by a large segment of the population, already dissatisfied with BTC's service.
Mr Evans has accused the government of trying to "muddy" the waters by comparing the PLP's terms of agreement to sell BTC to Bluewater with the terms offered to Cable & Wireless. He claims it is a "non-issue" for the unions and hardly worthy of comment.
Unfortunately, it is not a non-issue and is most worthy of comment, because with the Christie government, it was the union that also agreed to the Bluewater deal. Apparently, the union had no problem with this untried and untested foreigner named Bluewater, nor did it protest the terms of that agreement. Whenever it is referred to by Mr Christie he is careful to make it clear that the union was on board, and until now the union has not protested.
The main dispute is that the PLP offered Bluewater 49 per cent of the company, while the FNM offered Cable and Wireless 51 per cent. Now let's examine the meaning of the two offers in practical terms.
In the Bluewater agreement, management and control of BTC was to be given to Bluewater without it having paid for the majority interest. Bluewater was also given control of the board because it had a greater number of directors on it. It also had complete control of the day-to-day management because it had sole authority to select the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In other words Bluewater with its 49 per cent would have effectively secured majority control of BTC without having paid for it.
On the other hand Cable and Wireless (CWC) paid for its 51 per cent majority. On closing the net cash benefit to the government from the CWC deal will be at least $202 million, whereas the net value of the Bluewater transaction on closing would have been $150 million, and not the $260 million as claimed by the politicians.
Bluewater was granted an exclusivity period of six years for both mobile and fixed line services while CWC's exclusivity period for mobile service is three years, and the fixed line no longer applies as it has already been liberalised.
And so when the facts are examined, not only is government financially better off selling to CWC, but CWC has had to pay for its control of the company, whereas the Bluewater deal -- agreed by the Christie government, and one can assume by the union because of its silence at the time -- received exactly the same control of the company for which it would have paid no extra -- and for which it would have been paying in instalments over a six-year period, instead of cash. The bottom line was that Bluewater with its 49 per cent got complete control of the company without paying any extra, while CWC with its 51 per cent also got complete control of the company, but at a price.
December 17, 2010
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.