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
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.
Showing posts with label union leaders Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union leaders Bahamas. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Today's union leaders in The Bahamas are a different breed... they have no interest in nation building
UNIONISTS WANT RIGHT TO BE LATE FOR WORK
tribune242 editorial
UNIONS seem to follow a pattern, they rattle their sabres at tourism's busiest time of the year, or when an election is nearing. The reasoning seems to be that these are the times when the boss is most vulnerable, so they toss him to the ground and pick his pockets.
True or false, that is the perception.
For several days now, there has been discontent at the airport. A strike for the busy new year's weekend was threatened. Although a strike did not materialise there was chaos at the airport yesterday. We know that at least one businessman cancelled plans to travel to the US over the weekend because of strike talk - union leaders refused to confirm or deny whether the strike was on or off. The businessman feared that if he left the country he might not be able to return for early morning meetings on Tuesday. There were probably others in the same situation. Of course, no one knows how many weekend visitors coming into the country might also have cancelled because of the uncertainty.
As one businessman close to the tourist industry commented yesterday: "Today's union leaders are a different breed, they have no interest in nation building."
It seems unconscionable that anyone would try to destroy new business coming into a country that has suffered such a long economic downturn. But that is just what all this "work-to-rule" and "strike" at the airport did over a weekend that promised good business for the country.
It is interesting to note that the union making the most noise, is a breakaway union, which as yet has no contract with the government. Union leaders are to meet with Labour Minister Dion Foulkes next week -- Tuesday, January 10 -- to negotiate their first contract.
When a Tribune reporter tried to get information on Friday as to whether the newly-formed Bahamas Customs, Immigration and Allied Workers Union (BCIAWU) intended to go through with its strike threat, all union vice-president Sloane Smith would say was: "I offer no information today on what may possibly be going on at the airport. I will not say there is a strike or there isn't a strike. Things are unfolding the way they should. That is all I am prepared to say."
In other words, the travelling public can go you-know-where as far as unionists are concerned. They forget that these are the tourists who put bread on their tables and when the tourists are gone so is the bread.
Members of the BCIAWU were once a part of John Pinder's Bahamas Public Services Union (BPSU), which does have a government contract. The BCIAWU is negotiating a contract for the first time.
They have listed several items that they want clarified and incorporated into their contract. "Employees are repeatedly being disciplined for lateness, although the contract states this should not occur more than four times per month," is one of their complaints. Obviously, they are referring to the BPSU contract, which the BCIAWU abandoned on breaking away from the BPSU. At the moment, they have no contract as a reference point.
We had to read this "lateness" demand several times, and still we cannot believe that persons interested in holding down a job are trying to negotiate slackness into their contract. It's an absolutely preposterous demand, which should be tossed out before any negotiations begin. Anyone interested in giving an honest day's work has no right to demand the right to be late for work.
Just imagine everyone in a department deciding to have a lie in on a Monday morning. There would be chaos in that department. The taxpayers of this country have the right to demand more. What man or woman in the private sector can arrive late on the job without a valid excuse, and when that so-called "valid excuse" starts to form a pattern, the man or woman is eventually written up, and if there is no improvement, he or she is fired.
That is the general problem with the public service -- there are many exceptions, of course-- but as a general rule too many are not serious. They are not serious about work and they are not serious about serving the public. However, they are very serious about their days off, their overtime, and being allowed to be late for work one day in every week of the year.
Four late days a month, translates into 48 late days a year. What private company would tolerate this? What taxpayer would expect to get away with such dumb shenanigans at his own place of business, yet he is expected to foot the bill for a public servant to have the right to do so. It's now time for the public to have a say in some of these contracts, after all they are the ones footing these bills.
We hope that the right to be late for work is removed completely from all contracts. The main trouble with the public service is that it lacks discipline. What we have found in our years in business is that what is granted as a generous consideration when built into a contract suddenly becomes a right. One can be certain that every week of each month a staff member will be late because it is now his right-- no reasons are needed for the lateness. How can a department head manage a department efficiently if he/she has to work with staff who have such "rights."
We still can't believe that union leaders would insult the public's intelligence by threatening to strike for such nonsense.
January 03, 2012
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
UNIONS seem to follow a pattern, they rattle their sabres at tourism's busiest time of the year, or when an election is nearing. The reasoning seems to be that these are the times when the boss is most vulnerable, so they toss him to the ground and pick his pockets.
True or false, that is the perception.
For several days now, there has been discontent at the airport. A strike for the busy new year's weekend was threatened. Although a strike did not materialise there was chaos at the airport yesterday. We know that at least one businessman cancelled plans to travel to the US over the weekend because of strike talk - union leaders refused to confirm or deny whether the strike was on or off. The businessman feared that if he left the country he might not be able to return for early morning meetings on Tuesday. There were probably others in the same situation. Of course, no one knows how many weekend visitors coming into the country might also have cancelled because of the uncertainty.
As one businessman close to the tourist industry commented yesterday: "Today's union leaders are a different breed, they have no interest in nation building."
It seems unconscionable that anyone would try to destroy new business coming into a country that has suffered such a long economic downturn. But that is just what all this "work-to-rule" and "strike" at the airport did over a weekend that promised good business for the country.
It is interesting to note that the union making the most noise, is a breakaway union, which as yet has no contract with the government. Union leaders are to meet with Labour Minister Dion Foulkes next week -- Tuesday, January 10 -- to negotiate their first contract.
When a Tribune reporter tried to get information on Friday as to whether the newly-formed Bahamas Customs, Immigration and Allied Workers Union (BCIAWU) intended to go through with its strike threat, all union vice-president Sloane Smith would say was: "I offer no information today on what may possibly be going on at the airport. I will not say there is a strike or there isn't a strike. Things are unfolding the way they should. That is all I am prepared to say."
In other words, the travelling public can go you-know-where as far as unionists are concerned. They forget that these are the tourists who put bread on their tables and when the tourists are gone so is the bread.
Members of the BCIAWU were once a part of John Pinder's Bahamas Public Services Union (BPSU), which does have a government contract. The BCIAWU is negotiating a contract for the first time.
They have listed several items that they want clarified and incorporated into their contract. "Employees are repeatedly being disciplined for lateness, although the contract states this should not occur more than four times per month," is one of their complaints. Obviously, they are referring to the BPSU contract, which the BCIAWU abandoned on breaking away from the BPSU. At the moment, they have no contract as a reference point.
We had to read this "lateness" demand several times, and still we cannot believe that persons interested in holding down a job are trying to negotiate slackness into their contract. It's an absolutely preposterous demand, which should be tossed out before any negotiations begin. Anyone interested in giving an honest day's work has no right to demand the right to be late for work.
Just imagine everyone in a department deciding to have a lie in on a Monday morning. There would be chaos in that department. The taxpayers of this country have the right to demand more. What man or woman in the private sector can arrive late on the job without a valid excuse, and when that so-called "valid excuse" starts to form a pattern, the man or woman is eventually written up, and if there is no improvement, he or she is fired.
That is the general problem with the public service -- there are many exceptions, of course-- but as a general rule too many are not serious. They are not serious about work and they are not serious about serving the public. However, they are very serious about their days off, their overtime, and being allowed to be late for work one day in every week of the year.
Four late days a month, translates into 48 late days a year. What private company would tolerate this? What taxpayer would expect to get away with such dumb shenanigans at his own place of business, yet he is expected to foot the bill for a public servant to have the right to do so. It's now time for the public to have a say in some of these contracts, after all they are the ones footing these bills.
We hope that the right to be late for work is removed completely from all contracts. The main trouble with the public service is that it lacks discipline. What we have found in our years in business is that what is granted as a generous consideration when built into a contract suddenly becomes a right. One can be certain that every week of each month a staff member will be late because it is now his right-- no reasons are needed for the lateness. How can a department head manage a department efficiently if he/she has to work with staff who have such "rights."
We still can't believe that union leaders would insult the public's intelligence by threatening to strike for such nonsense.
January 03, 2012
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) has found no friend in the Perry Gladstone Christie lead Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)
Undoing the BTC deal
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Could it be done?
Officials of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) appear to have their work cut out for them.
In addition to delivering on all they and the government promised in the months and weeks leading up to the recent controversial closing of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization process, they must convince hundreds of BTC workers that CWC is not the enemy, but a caring employer and strategic partner in every sense.
That may be a tough task, but perhaps not an impossible one.
Accepting the defeat that has been handed to them, BTC union leaders have met with CWC representatives to try to iron out the best arrangements for their jittery members.
While it may reach agreement with the previously enraged unions, what is clear is that CWC has found no friend in the Progressive Liberal Party, and if its leader, Perry Gladstone Christie, delivers on what he promises if he wins the next general election, CWC could face more problems that it bargained for.
But that’s if Christie wins, and if he follows through on his warning to undo this deal.
The former prime minister issued the threat to CWC on several occasions, most recently a week ago as the company and the government were preparing to finalize the transaction.
“This is a bad deal,” Christie said.
“The deal stinks and the PLP remains committed to regaining this asset for the Bahamian people and allow the Bahamian public to have a full and public view of the entirety of this transaction.”
But while Christie is sure he would undo the deal, he apparently has not yet settled on how it would be achieved.
Each time he threatened to change the terms of the deal, we carried the warning, but there really was never any indication about what steps he would take to deliver on this promise if he forms the next government.
So National Review decided to ask him.
Christie revealed that he would seek advice from lawyers because it would have to be done legally, of course.
“The mechanics will have to be left to the kind of advice we will get on the matter,” he told us.
“I’m not prepared to comment on those matters.”
Three PLP parliamentarians who are lawyers also told us they are not prepared to speak behind the leader.
One of them said, “We won’t get our messages mixed up on this one.”
So what really would be Christie’s options on this?
Thomas Evans, QC, was not intimately involved in the BTC deal, but has vast knowledge of the law and commercial transactions.
“Because they are the government I suppose they can do whatever they choose,” said Evans, speaking generally about governments.
Evans recalled years back when he was in the Office of the Attorney General.
He was bold enough to write to the government and advise it could not do something.
“I was very quickly rebuffed and told ‘Look, we’re the government. We can do whatever we feel like doing’. That’s true, but there are consequences for certain things that they do.”
Evans pointed out that if one party reneges on an obligation that it assumes in entering a contract, then that violates and encroaches on the other party, and that other party is entitled to sue and recover damages for whatever loss is incurred as a result of the breach.
“So, while the government could go ahead and not perform an obligation which it assumed, there are consequences,” he repeated.
PENALTIES
Another lawyer close to the PLP suggested to us that one way in which a new Christie administration could force a deal change is by reducing the three-year exclusivity period for cellular service.
“CWC would have to determine how that would affect its commercial interest because the deal may no longer be viable,” noted the lawyer who did not want to be named.
“It may give them a commercial impetus to say rather than just paying us the penalty we want out of the entire deal.”
But that would call for hefty penalties.
In its agreement with CWC, the government has agreed “to pay to the purchaser such amount as is equal to the loss, expense, damage or other liability (calculated on the same basis as would be used for determining damages for breach of contract) incurred by the purchaser which arises as a result of a second cellular license being issued prior to the third anniversary of completion, and/or a second and third cellular license being issued prior to the fifth anniversary of completion.”
Under the agreement, the government has agreed to pay CWC $100 million if one or more additional cellular licenses are issued within the next year.
It would have to pay $80 million if one or more licences are issued within the next two years and it would have to pay $40 million if it issues one or more licenses within the next three years.
If the government issues a third cellular license after the third anniversary of the closing of the sale, but prior to the fifth anniversary of completion, it would be subject to a $20 million penalty.
So it would seem unlikely that the Christie administration might want to go this route, but given that Christie has not yet received advice from lawyers, that of course remains unclear.
Evans said if the government decides to go to Cable and Wireless asking for two percent of the shares back, it would likely have great difficulty “because you’ve got a deal.”
“Once a contract has been entered into between two parties it can’t be changed unless you have the consent of both parties,” he explained.
“It can’t be altered. One person can’t unilaterally alter the terms of the contract, even if you are the government.
“So, Cable and Wireless would say ‘Look, the deal I have is a deal. I acquired 51 percent. That’s what I wanted. I am not interested in 49 percent, and I’m just not going to agree.
“I don’t know that there’s any way that the government, even though they’re the government, would be able to compel Cable and Wireless to agree to surrender their two percent.”
Evans said the fact that a new party takes over the government doesn’t change the obligations that were assumed by the previous party because the government is the government.
“A party doesn’t make the government even though the constitution says that after an election the prime minister is the person who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament.
“To that extent there’s a measure of connection between the government and a political party. But the point I’m seeking to make is that the government is the government.”
TAX FRUSTRATIONS
When he spoke in the House of Assembly recently, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, who served as a minister in the Christie Cabinet, noted that there are all sorts of creative ways in which a PLP government could pull the rug from under CWC.
Gibson — who served as president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) during initial attempts to privatize the then BaTelCo in the 1990s — expanded on those comments when he spoke with us for this piece.
“Obviously Cable and Wireless would have gotten what they consider to be an air-tight agreement from the government,” he said.
“And they are making it very difficult to introduce competition [any time soon] and they are making it difficult to have any other operator come in here, and making it difficult for a new government to be in a position to force them back to the table.
“As I said in Parliament, there are many ways that you can force a company like Cable and Wireless back to the table.
“We can tax them on certain aspects of their income; tax them on certain areas of the different services that they provide. For instance, we could put a special tax on mobile services. They’re the only one who provide mobile services in The Bahamas.
“So we tax them 15, 20 or 30 percent on mobile services, so there are many ways.”
Gibson had another idea.
“If we’re in charge of URCA (the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority), we could have discussions with URCA and make sure that individuals at URCA, advise them, or encourage them not to allow them (CWC) to go up on rates to offset taxes that they would have on certain parts of income.”
But given that URCA is an independent regulator, that too appears unlikely.
Gibson said that at the end of the day “it is known that the Bahamian public wants nothing to do with Cable and Wireless and they want BTC back in the hands of Bahamians.”
He said Bahamians have been running BTC for decades and “at the end of the day they almost feel that we are going back 100 years”.
“Once certain members of any elite group decide that they want to purchase, whether it is a property or a company, it is very difficult to persuade them to give it back to the people that it belongs to,” Gibson said.
“So it’s important to put it back in the hands of the people.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
We also asked prominent attorney Brian Moree how Christie might be able to get BTC back in the hands of the people, if he is re-elected.
Moree, who had no involvement in the BTC deal, said given the very strong and very direct comments from Christie, one would assume that he has a legal basis for making those statements.
“It would be surprising that that position would be adopted unless they had the benefit of some advice to suggest that the transaction could be impeached or reversed if they were elected,” Moree said.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to challenge a transaction of that sort retrospectively or after the event, one would have to look to see if there were any constitutional issues, which would be relevant and whether proceedings on the public law side of the court could be commenced, either by way of judicial review or some other process.”
Constitutional issues were raised by one respondent when URCA was considering the BTC/CWC deal.
That respondent asserted that the proposed exclusivity of the licensee is ultra vires the Constitution of The Bahamas.
The respondent stated that URCA cannot be party to an unconstitutional result and should require the applicants to address the question as to whether or not the exclusivity arrangement offends the Constitution.
URCA said it was aware of discussion of this issue by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Marpin Case2, a Dominican case in which the Judicial Committee held that a monopoly to control a means of communications can amount to a hindrance of freedom of expression, provided that it is proven that the restriction exceeds that which is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
URCA noted that the Committee in that case did not make any conclusive finding, but referred the issue back to the Dominican courts for a consideration of the particular facts in the context of the above test.
“In any event, constitutional issues, such as this, are highly complex and would properly involve significant judicial scrutiny of the facts surrounding the challenged decision. URCA is not the appropriate forum to consider matters of constitutionality of legislation in The Bahamas, and is therefore not competent to determine this point,” URCA said.
Supporters of Christie’s plan to take back a controlling interest in BTC point to similar action taken by Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow who in 2009 brought legislation to nationalize Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) in the public interest.
Barrow promised “fair and proper compensation” and said the move against BTL was not “some cowboy action, but something done in the full plentitude of, and compliance with, our constitution.”
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Moree said a degree of responsibility must be attributed to people in public life who make statements concerning these serious matters.
“That is why I said that I assume persons have obtained legal advice to support the position which they have adopted,” he said.
“I’m not aware of that legal advice, so I would not want to speculate.”
While he did not speculate, Moree raised the issue of investor confidence.
“The Bahamas as a sovereign country [must] acknowledge that there has to be a continuity of governance regardless of which political party is in power at any point in time,” he said.
“And when persons are dealing with the Government of The Bahamas, they have to have a level of confidence that their dealings — assuming that they’re lawful and they’re proper and there has been no corruption — they need to have the confidence that if they deal with the government which happens to be the FNM one day, that their transactions aren’t going to be the subject of litigation if another party comes in...”
Gibson said the Christie government has no problem with foreign investors, but is concerned about safeguarding national assets.
“If you look around and you try to identify one single project that this FNM government would have brought to The Bahamas since coming to office in 2007, I don’t think you could do that,” Gibsons aid.
“All of the projects that they are sitting and smiling over right now were projects that were initiated under the Progressive Liberal Party administration.
“And so, we’re not anti-foreign investors. We are anti-Cable and Wireless.”
Gibson said many Bahamians would have welcomed AT&T or T-Mobile, but not as majority shareholders.
“We’re not talking about foreign investors; we’re talking about this specific deal with Cable and Wireless, which seems to be the greatest giveaway ever in the history of The Bahamas,” the MP said.
PLPs would no doubt point to the instances where the Ingraham administration, upon assuming office in 2007 undid some of the deals left in place by the Christie-led government.
The straw market deal, incidentally, which was undone by Ingraham, remains unresolved with some of the professionals who had agreements with the government still waiting to be paid.
Of course, there were no such agreements on the magnitude of the BTC deal, but those actions by the new government led to the popular ‘stop, review and cancel’ phrase tossed about by PLP politicians.
When they took over last week, CWC executives seemed unbothered by Christie’s threats.
“In terms of our operations with government, we have a number of operations with governments across the globe in which we have very successful relations with them,” said Gerard Borely, chief financial officer of LIME, CWC’s regional arm.
“And we have successful relationships with governments no matter who is in power. The reason for that is because we deliver value and service to our consumers and governments, value that they appreciate. And we expect that to continue to be [the case] here.”
4/11/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Could it be done?
Officials of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) appear to have their work cut out for them.
In addition to delivering on all they and the government promised in the months and weeks leading up to the recent controversial closing of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization process, they must convince hundreds of BTC workers that CWC is not the enemy, but a caring employer and strategic partner in every sense.
That may be a tough task, but perhaps not an impossible one.
Accepting the defeat that has been handed to them, BTC union leaders have met with CWC representatives to try to iron out the best arrangements for their jittery members.
While it may reach agreement with the previously enraged unions, what is clear is that CWC has found no friend in the Progressive Liberal Party, and if its leader, Perry Gladstone Christie, delivers on what he promises if he wins the next general election, CWC could face more problems that it bargained for.
But that’s if Christie wins, and if he follows through on his warning to undo this deal.
The former prime minister issued the threat to CWC on several occasions, most recently a week ago as the company and the government were preparing to finalize the transaction.
“This is a bad deal,” Christie said.
“The deal stinks and the PLP remains committed to regaining this asset for the Bahamian people and allow the Bahamian public to have a full and public view of the entirety of this transaction.”
But while Christie is sure he would undo the deal, he apparently has not yet settled on how it would be achieved.
Each time he threatened to change the terms of the deal, we carried the warning, but there really was never any indication about what steps he would take to deliver on this promise if he forms the next government.
So National Review decided to ask him.
Christie revealed that he would seek advice from lawyers because it would have to be done legally, of course.
“The mechanics will have to be left to the kind of advice we will get on the matter,” he told us.
“I’m not prepared to comment on those matters.”
Three PLP parliamentarians who are lawyers also told us they are not prepared to speak behind the leader.
One of them said, “We won’t get our messages mixed up on this one.”
So what really would be Christie’s options on this?
Thomas Evans, QC, was not intimately involved in the BTC deal, but has vast knowledge of the law and commercial transactions.
“Because they are the government I suppose they can do whatever they choose,” said Evans, speaking generally about governments.
Evans recalled years back when he was in the Office of the Attorney General.
He was bold enough to write to the government and advise it could not do something.
“I was very quickly rebuffed and told ‘Look, we’re the government. We can do whatever we feel like doing’. That’s true, but there are consequences for certain things that they do.”
Evans pointed out that if one party reneges on an obligation that it assumes in entering a contract, then that violates and encroaches on the other party, and that other party is entitled to sue and recover damages for whatever loss is incurred as a result of the breach.
“So, while the government could go ahead and not perform an obligation which it assumed, there are consequences,” he repeated.
PENALTIES
Another lawyer close to the PLP suggested to us that one way in which a new Christie administration could force a deal change is by reducing the three-year exclusivity period for cellular service.
“CWC would have to determine how that would affect its commercial interest because the deal may no longer be viable,” noted the lawyer who did not want to be named.
“It may give them a commercial impetus to say rather than just paying us the penalty we want out of the entire deal.”
But that would call for hefty penalties.
In its agreement with CWC, the government has agreed “to pay to the purchaser such amount as is equal to the loss, expense, damage or other liability (calculated on the same basis as would be used for determining damages for breach of contract) incurred by the purchaser which arises as a result of a second cellular license being issued prior to the third anniversary of completion, and/or a second and third cellular license being issued prior to the fifth anniversary of completion.”
Under the agreement, the government has agreed to pay CWC $100 million if one or more additional cellular licenses are issued within the next year.
It would have to pay $80 million if one or more licences are issued within the next two years and it would have to pay $40 million if it issues one or more licenses within the next three years.
If the government issues a third cellular license after the third anniversary of the closing of the sale, but prior to the fifth anniversary of completion, it would be subject to a $20 million penalty.
So it would seem unlikely that the Christie administration might want to go this route, but given that Christie has not yet received advice from lawyers, that of course remains unclear.
Evans said if the government decides to go to Cable and Wireless asking for two percent of the shares back, it would likely have great difficulty “because you’ve got a deal.”
“Once a contract has been entered into between two parties it can’t be changed unless you have the consent of both parties,” he explained.
“It can’t be altered. One person can’t unilaterally alter the terms of the contract, even if you are the government.
“So, Cable and Wireless would say ‘Look, the deal I have is a deal. I acquired 51 percent. That’s what I wanted. I am not interested in 49 percent, and I’m just not going to agree.
“I don’t know that there’s any way that the government, even though they’re the government, would be able to compel Cable and Wireless to agree to surrender their two percent.”
Evans said the fact that a new party takes over the government doesn’t change the obligations that were assumed by the previous party because the government is the government.
“A party doesn’t make the government even though the constitution says that after an election the prime minister is the person who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament.
“To that extent there’s a measure of connection between the government and a political party. But the point I’m seeking to make is that the government is the government.”
TAX FRUSTRATIONS
When he spoke in the House of Assembly recently, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, who served as a minister in the Christie Cabinet, noted that there are all sorts of creative ways in which a PLP government could pull the rug from under CWC.
Gibson — who served as president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) during initial attempts to privatize the then BaTelCo in the 1990s — expanded on those comments when he spoke with us for this piece.
“Obviously Cable and Wireless would have gotten what they consider to be an air-tight agreement from the government,” he said.
“And they are making it very difficult to introduce competition [any time soon] and they are making it difficult to have any other operator come in here, and making it difficult for a new government to be in a position to force them back to the table.
“As I said in Parliament, there are many ways that you can force a company like Cable and Wireless back to the table.
“We can tax them on certain aspects of their income; tax them on certain areas of the different services that they provide. For instance, we could put a special tax on mobile services. They’re the only one who provide mobile services in The Bahamas.
“So we tax them 15, 20 or 30 percent on mobile services, so there are many ways.”
Gibson had another idea.
“If we’re in charge of URCA (the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority), we could have discussions with URCA and make sure that individuals at URCA, advise them, or encourage them not to allow them (CWC) to go up on rates to offset taxes that they would have on certain parts of income.”
But given that URCA is an independent regulator, that too appears unlikely.
Gibson said that at the end of the day “it is known that the Bahamian public wants nothing to do with Cable and Wireless and they want BTC back in the hands of Bahamians.”
He said Bahamians have been running BTC for decades and “at the end of the day they almost feel that we are going back 100 years”.
“Once certain members of any elite group decide that they want to purchase, whether it is a property or a company, it is very difficult to persuade them to give it back to the people that it belongs to,” Gibson said.
“So it’s important to put it back in the hands of the people.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
We also asked prominent attorney Brian Moree how Christie might be able to get BTC back in the hands of the people, if he is re-elected.
Moree, who had no involvement in the BTC deal, said given the very strong and very direct comments from Christie, one would assume that he has a legal basis for making those statements.
“It would be surprising that that position would be adopted unless they had the benefit of some advice to suggest that the transaction could be impeached or reversed if they were elected,” Moree said.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to challenge a transaction of that sort retrospectively or after the event, one would have to look to see if there were any constitutional issues, which would be relevant and whether proceedings on the public law side of the court could be commenced, either by way of judicial review or some other process.”
Constitutional issues were raised by one respondent when URCA was considering the BTC/CWC deal.
That respondent asserted that the proposed exclusivity of the licensee is ultra vires the Constitution of The Bahamas.
The respondent stated that URCA cannot be party to an unconstitutional result and should require the applicants to address the question as to whether or not the exclusivity arrangement offends the Constitution.
URCA said it was aware of discussion of this issue by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Marpin Case2, a Dominican case in which the Judicial Committee held that a monopoly to control a means of communications can amount to a hindrance of freedom of expression, provided that it is proven that the restriction exceeds that which is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
URCA noted that the Committee in that case did not make any conclusive finding, but referred the issue back to the Dominican courts for a consideration of the particular facts in the context of the above test.
“In any event, constitutional issues, such as this, are highly complex and would properly involve significant judicial scrutiny of the facts surrounding the challenged decision. URCA is not the appropriate forum to consider matters of constitutionality of legislation in The Bahamas, and is therefore not competent to determine this point,” URCA said.
Supporters of Christie’s plan to take back a controlling interest in BTC point to similar action taken by Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow who in 2009 brought legislation to nationalize Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) in the public interest.
Barrow promised “fair and proper compensation” and said the move against BTL was not “some cowboy action, but something done in the full plentitude of, and compliance with, our constitution.”
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Moree said a degree of responsibility must be attributed to people in public life who make statements concerning these serious matters.
“That is why I said that I assume persons have obtained legal advice to support the position which they have adopted,” he said.
“I’m not aware of that legal advice, so I would not want to speculate.”
While he did not speculate, Moree raised the issue of investor confidence.
“The Bahamas as a sovereign country [must] acknowledge that there has to be a continuity of governance regardless of which political party is in power at any point in time,” he said.
“And when persons are dealing with the Government of The Bahamas, they have to have a level of confidence that their dealings — assuming that they’re lawful and they’re proper and there has been no corruption — they need to have the confidence that if they deal with the government which happens to be the FNM one day, that their transactions aren’t going to be the subject of litigation if another party comes in...”
Gibson said the Christie government has no problem with foreign investors, but is concerned about safeguarding national assets.
“If you look around and you try to identify one single project that this FNM government would have brought to The Bahamas since coming to office in 2007, I don’t think you could do that,” Gibsons aid.
“All of the projects that they are sitting and smiling over right now were projects that were initiated under the Progressive Liberal Party administration.
“And so, we’re not anti-foreign investors. We are anti-Cable and Wireless.”
Gibson said many Bahamians would have welcomed AT&T or T-Mobile, but not as majority shareholders.
“We’re not talking about foreign investors; we’re talking about this specific deal with Cable and Wireless, which seems to be the greatest giveaway ever in the history of The Bahamas,” the MP said.
PLPs would no doubt point to the instances where the Ingraham administration, upon assuming office in 2007 undid some of the deals left in place by the Christie-led government.
The straw market deal, incidentally, which was undone by Ingraham, remains unresolved with some of the professionals who had agreements with the government still waiting to be paid.
Of course, there were no such agreements on the magnitude of the BTC deal, but those actions by the new government led to the popular ‘stop, review and cancel’ phrase tossed about by PLP politicians.
When they took over last week, CWC executives seemed unbothered by Christie’s threats.
“In terms of our operations with government, we have a number of operations with governments across the globe in which we have very successful relations with them,” said Gerard Borely, chief financial officer of LIME, CWC’s regional arm.
“And we have successful relationships with governments no matter who is in power. The reason for that is because we deliver value and service to our consumers and governments, value that they appreciate. And we expect that to continue to be [the case] here.”
4/11/2011
thenassauguardian
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Bluewater Ventures Limited / Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatization deal that came close to reality
Bluewater Unveiled
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
A look at the BTC deal that almost was
The veil of secrecy surrounding the group that almost purchased 49 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) under the Christie administration is being lifted.
According to a closely guarded document obtained by National Review, Bluewater is a privately held entity, which does not have audited statements or disclose financial statements publicly.
“However, at signing or immediately prior to signing the [letter of intent] we are prepared to disclose relevant financial information and give the relevant assurances on Bluewater’s acquisition vehicle, including its financial capacity to complete the transaction,” the company said in 2006.
The response came as part of the due diligence exercise carried out by the Privatization Committee under the Christie administration, which subsequently recommended to the government that negotiations should proceed with Bluewater.
Members of that committee included the financial secretary, the legal advisor to the Ministry of Finance, BTC union officials, private sector members and telecommunications consultants.
As the government gets closer to closing a deal with Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) to sell 51 percent of BTC, the Bluewater deal that almost came to be remains highly controversial.
Speaking at his party’s rally on Clifford Park Saturday night, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said if the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had its way BTC would have been sold off to Bluewater, which “had no experience in telecommunications. The company wasn’t even traded on the stock market.”
Ingraham said, “We still aren’t exactly sure who had their hands in that Bluewater pot or who the real players were behind a deal that would have purchased BTC on credit…”
Details of the deal that almost came to be are likely to be discussed in greater details in the BTC privatization debate, which gets underway in the House of Assembly today.
Ingraham has already promised to have more to say about Bluewater and what the Christie administration had planned.
In 2006, the privatization committee posed a number of questions to Bluewater, which were answered in detailed form in a document to the committee dated September 13, 2006.
One revelation made in that document is that Bluewater was formed to invest in and manage companies in the telecom and media industries.
According to the document, there was no plan for any layoffs. Between 2006 and 2011, average salary at BTC was projected to rise from $43,332 to $48,780.
Bluewater said in 2006 it would negotiate contracts with the existing management team between signing the letter of intent and closing the transaction.
“We anticipate that as a part of their package executive management will receive equity participation in BTC,” Bluewater said.
“Bluewater also anticipates that all board members will receive industry standard board compensation packages.”
A PLAN FOR BTC
Bluewater outlined 25 key initiatives to target in the first two years of purchasing the BTC shares.
It committed to plugging revenue leakages; reducing discounts to prepaid vendors; reducing bad debt charges; charging for in-home wiring to recoup costs; tightening the pre-paid card distribution process; instituting a new sales incentive scheme; reducing fleet maintenance costs; reducing overtime expenses and reducing contract service costs by 20 percent.
The company said that in the first year of the BTC acquisition it expected $92.5 million to be spent in capital expenditure to focus on consumers and core networks.
Asked to provide the supporting details and data for Bluewater’s proposed debt to equity ratio and any plans for external financing, Bluewater said it “does not intend to leverage BTC, so the net debt to equity ratio does not change during our projections.”
It also said it expected “all free cash flow after capital expenditure to be dividended to shareholders. This excludes current cash on the balance sheet which will be left at the company for working capital purposes.”
Bluewater also advised that it expected the cost of management and consultant contracts to be covered by the employee costs and the consultant costs in the business plan.
“In addition, we anticipate setting aside 10 percent of the equity of BTC for employees,” said Bluewater in 2006.
Under current plans for BTC, which appear poised to go through, the government says it will, by the end of this year, sell nine percent or approximately $40 million of the shares in BTC to the Bahamian public.
Bluewater said in 2006 that it did not intend to transfer or sell any of BTC’s shares for three years or any longer period of time as agreed by the shareholders.
The Bluewater plan also called for an improvement of EBITDA margins from 26 percent in 2005 to 39 percent in 2008.
The company said the improvement in EBITDA would have been achieved through the streamlining of operations.
The 2006 document to the Privatization Committee added, “Bluewater also intends to offer better value to its customers through reductions in wireless and international long distance tariffs as laid out in our business plan.”
The company had planned to launch an IPTV offering in 2009.
This would have included more than 1,000 movies on-demand “available to watch exactly when you want”; interactive music channels; on-demand movies and TV that you can stop, rewind, pause or fast-forward.
IPTV revenues were projected to be more than $9 million by this year.
The deal that came close to reality also included a plan for improving telecommunication services on less developed Family Islands.
THE BLUEWATER PLAYERS
The Privatization Committee asked Bluewater to provide the propose management candidates for BTC.
Several board members were named.
One of them was Trinidad and Tobago native Roger Ames, who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Warner Music Group and president of Warner Music International between August 1999 and August 2004.
Carlos Espinal who in 2006 was CEO of TSTT, the national telephone company of Trinidad & Tobago, was named as another Bluewater executive.
Prior to joining TSTT in 2004, he spent eight years with Verizon as senior vice president international - Latin America.
During his time with Verizon, he worked as a turn-around specialist for Verizon’s Latin American and Caribbean businesses, Bluewater said.
John Gregg was listed in the document sent to the Privatization Committee as managing director of Bluewater. According to that 2006 document, he had 15 years of building companies in the media and telecom industry in Europe, the U.S. and Asia.
Another board member named was Andrew Sukawaty, who was named as the chairman and CEO of Inmarsat, which Bluewater said was the world leader in global satellite communications.
According to the document, Sukawaty served as president and CEO of Sprint PCS, one of America’s largest mobile phone providers. It said he grew Sprint from a start up to a company with 9.5 million subscribers and approximately $6.6 billion in revenue.
Bluewater also named several operational advisors, a finance team and a legal team.
The document said Bluewater’s principals intended to invest in BTC through a standalone Bahamian entity that would have been capitalized and controlled by Bluewater’s principals. It said Bluewater is an entity controlled by John Gregg.
DEFENDING THE DEAL
Today, Bluewater of course is a dead deal, but what the Christie administration had proposed continues to come up in the current privatization debate.
The Christie administration had agreed to sell a 49 percent stake in the national telecommunications provider for $260 million shortly before the May 2007 general election.
However, after the Free National Movement was returned to power, Ingraham vowed to review the deal, claiming that Christie and the former Cabinet were planning to sell BTC "on credit" and that Bluewater would enjoy too lengthy an exclusivity period as a monopoly in an industry that his administration was keen on liberalizing.
According to documents previously obtained by The Nassau Guardian, Bluewater had agreed to pay $220 million for BTC in cash at closing, $25 million at the end of the fifth year following closing and $15 million at the end of the sixth year.
Under the deal, Bluewater would have been granted mobile and landline licenses with five and six-year exclusive periods, respectively.
Speaking at a press conference at PLP headquarters on Farrington Road yesterday, Christie again defended the deal.
“By innuendos and suggestions he (Ingraham) started off immediately after he became prime minister to suggest that there was something crooked about our involvement in Bluewater,” Christie said.
“The Progressive Liberal Party structured an approach to privatization that relied on the integrity and leadership of the financial secretary (at the time) Mrs. Ruth Millar.
“To ensure that we were on safe grounds we placed the leaders of the management union of BTC and the workers, BCPOU (Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union), as full members of the negotiating team.
“That team, including the union leaders, would come into Cabinet and brief Cabinet. We took a transparent and accountable approach to it.”
Referring to the prime minister, Christie said, “…If he really wants to look for something, tell the Bahamian people whether or not there are deals in this BTC sale to Cable and Wireless.
“That’s where he should be looking at. The Progressive Liberal Party lost the elections. We can explain the positions we took.”
3/21/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
A look at the BTC deal that almost was
The veil of secrecy surrounding the group that almost purchased 49 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) under the Christie administration is being lifted.
According to a closely guarded document obtained by National Review, Bluewater is a privately held entity, which does not have audited statements or disclose financial statements publicly.
“However, at signing or immediately prior to signing the [letter of intent] we are prepared to disclose relevant financial information and give the relevant assurances on Bluewater’s acquisition vehicle, including its financial capacity to complete the transaction,” the company said in 2006.
The response came as part of the due diligence exercise carried out by the Privatization Committee under the Christie administration, which subsequently recommended to the government that negotiations should proceed with Bluewater.
Members of that committee included the financial secretary, the legal advisor to the Ministry of Finance, BTC union officials, private sector members and telecommunications consultants.
As the government gets closer to closing a deal with Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) to sell 51 percent of BTC, the Bluewater deal that almost came to be remains highly controversial.
Speaking at his party’s rally on Clifford Park Saturday night, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said if the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had its way BTC would have been sold off to Bluewater, which “had no experience in telecommunications. The company wasn’t even traded on the stock market.”
Ingraham said, “We still aren’t exactly sure who had their hands in that Bluewater pot or who the real players were behind a deal that would have purchased BTC on credit…”
Details of the deal that almost came to be are likely to be discussed in greater details in the BTC privatization debate, which gets underway in the House of Assembly today.
Ingraham has already promised to have more to say about Bluewater and what the Christie administration had planned.
In 2006, the privatization committee posed a number of questions to Bluewater, which were answered in detailed form in a document to the committee dated September 13, 2006.
One revelation made in that document is that Bluewater was formed to invest in and manage companies in the telecom and media industries.
According to the document, there was no plan for any layoffs. Between 2006 and 2011, average salary at BTC was projected to rise from $43,332 to $48,780.
Bluewater said in 2006 it would negotiate contracts with the existing management team between signing the letter of intent and closing the transaction.
“We anticipate that as a part of their package executive management will receive equity participation in BTC,” Bluewater said.
“Bluewater also anticipates that all board members will receive industry standard board compensation packages.”
A PLAN FOR BTC
Bluewater outlined 25 key initiatives to target in the first two years of purchasing the BTC shares.
It committed to plugging revenue leakages; reducing discounts to prepaid vendors; reducing bad debt charges; charging for in-home wiring to recoup costs; tightening the pre-paid card distribution process; instituting a new sales incentive scheme; reducing fleet maintenance costs; reducing overtime expenses and reducing contract service costs by 20 percent.
The company said that in the first year of the BTC acquisition it expected $92.5 million to be spent in capital expenditure to focus on consumers and core networks.
Asked to provide the supporting details and data for Bluewater’s proposed debt to equity ratio and any plans for external financing, Bluewater said it “does not intend to leverage BTC, so the net debt to equity ratio does not change during our projections.”
It also said it expected “all free cash flow after capital expenditure to be dividended to shareholders. This excludes current cash on the balance sheet which will be left at the company for working capital purposes.”
Bluewater also advised that it expected the cost of management and consultant contracts to be covered by the employee costs and the consultant costs in the business plan.
“In addition, we anticipate setting aside 10 percent of the equity of BTC for employees,” said Bluewater in 2006.
Under current plans for BTC, which appear poised to go through, the government says it will, by the end of this year, sell nine percent or approximately $40 million of the shares in BTC to the Bahamian public.
Bluewater said in 2006 that it did not intend to transfer or sell any of BTC’s shares for three years or any longer period of time as agreed by the shareholders.
The Bluewater plan also called for an improvement of EBITDA margins from 26 percent in 2005 to 39 percent in 2008.
The company said the improvement in EBITDA would have been achieved through the streamlining of operations.
The 2006 document to the Privatization Committee added, “Bluewater also intends to offer better value to its customers through reductions in wireless and international long distance tariffs as laid out in our business plan.”
The company had planned to launch an IPTV offering in 2009.
This would have included more than 1,000 movies on-demand “available to watch exactly when you want”; interactive music channels; on-demand movies and TV that you can stop, rewind, pause or fast-forward.
IPTV revenues were projected to be more than $9 million by this year.
The deal that came close to reality also included a plan for improving telecommunication services on less developed Family Islands.
THE BLUEWATER PLAYERS
The Privatization Committee asked Bluewater to provide the propose management candidates for BTC.
Several board members were named.
One of them was Trinidad and Tobago native Roger Ames, who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Warner Music Group and president of Warner Music International between August 1999 and August 2004.
Carlos Espinal who in 2006 was CEO of TSTT, the national telephone company of Trinidad & Tobago, was named as another Bluewater executive.
Prior to joining TSTT in 2004, he spent eight years with Verizon as senior vice president international - Latin America.
During his time with Verizon, he worked as a turn-around specialist for Verizon’s Latin American and Caribbean businesses, Bluewater said.
John Gregg was listed in the document sent to the Privatization Committee as managing director of Bluewater. According to that 2006 document, he had 15 years of building companies in the media and telecom industry in Europe, the U.S. and Asia.
Another board member named was Andrew Sukawaty, who was named as the chairman and CEO of Inmarsat, which Bluewater said was the world leader in global satellite communications.
According to the document, Sukawaty served as president and CEO of Sprint PCS, one of America’s largest mobile phone providers. It said he grew Sprint from a start up to a company with 9.5 million subscribers and approximately $6.6 billion in revenue.
Bluewater also named several operational advisors, a finance team and a legal team.
The document said Bluewater’s principals intended to invest in BTC through a standalone Bahamian entity that would have been capitalized and controlled by Bluewater’s principals. It said Bluewater is an entity controlled by John Gregg.
DEFENDING THE DEAL
Today, Bluewater of course is a dead deal, but what the Christie administration had proposed continues to come up in the current privatization debate.
The Christie administration had agreed to sell a 49 percent stake in the national telecommunications provider for $260 million shortly before the May 2007 general election.
However, after the Free National Movement was returned to power, Ingraham vowed to review the deal, claiming that Christie and the former Cabinet were planning to sell BTC "on credit" and that Bluewater would enjoy too lengthy an exclusivity period as a monopoly in an industry that his administration was keen on liberalizing.
According to documents previously obtained by The Nassau Guardian, Bluewater had agreed to pay $220 million for BTC in cash at closing, $25 million at the end of the fifth year following closing and $15 million at the end of the sixth year.
Under the deal, Bluewater would have been granted mobile and landline licenses with five and six-year exclusive periods, respectively.
Speaking at a press conference at PLP headquarters on Farrington Road yesterday, Christie again defended the deal.
“By innuendos and suggestions he (Ingraham) started off immediately after he became prime minister to suggest that there was something crooked about our involvement in Bluewater,” Christie said.
“The Progressive Liberal Party structured an approach to privatization that relied on the integrity and leadership of the financial secretary (at the time) Mrs. Ruth Millar.
“To ensure that we were on safe grounds we placed the leaders of the management union of BTC and the workers, BCPOU (Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union), as full members of the negotiating team.
“That team, including the union leaders, would come into Cabinet and brief Cabinet. We took a transparent and accountable approach to it.”
Referring to the prime minister, Christie said, “…If he really wants to look for something, tell the Bahamian people whether or not there are deals in this BTC sale to Cable and Wireless.
“That’s where he should be looking at. The Progressive Liberal Party lost the elections. We can explain the positions we took.”
3/21/2011
thenassauguardian
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
This is no time for the unions to create further instability...
Not the time for union unrest
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Thursday, February 24, 2011
...is there any hope of revolution in The Bahamas?
What can we learn from Haiti and Egypt?
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.
I found this quote on the e-mail signature of Philip "Brave" Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party. Tribune editor in chief, Paco Nunez, once used the same quote as his e-mail signature.
I thought it unsurprising in the latter instance since Mr Nunez also has on his desk a quote from another American journalist, satirist H.L. Mencken that says a journalist is to a politician as a dog is to a lamp-post. But on Mr Davis' signature, I thought it was a classic case of something hidden in plain sight.
Like this timeless quote, Egypt this month lifted the veil on a fundamental nature of politics: it is dirty and deceptive; it is stubborn and it is life altering. What we also saw was an example of what is possible when people awaken, when they are slapped into consciousness and demand accountability from the public masqueraders.
Some Bahamians have already been swept up in the Egyptian revolutionary euphoria, but less their nobleness and naivety lead them astray, they should know, it takes a lot more than rhetoric to make a revolution.
As the Egyptian story unfolded over the past few days and weeks, there was something eerily familiar about the plot. That is because Egypt faced a test that Haiti last took in 2004, and we invigilated it from across the waters. How well Haiti passed is still up for debate, and as the dust settles on the Egyptian streets their results are being tallied.
Both stories, as well as the "pro-democracy movement" that is rippling across the Middle East, have lessons to teach us, about the nature of our politics and our people.
Government
The Indonesian people, who themselves are familiar with people's revolution responded to Egypt's news with cautious jubilation, advising the Egyptian people that the hard part had only just began. Revolution is a temporary moment. It is the gust of wind represented by the hurricane, and its seasonal occurrence is nowhere near as sure or firm. Egyptians now have the task of reconstructing a government and giving birth to the national dream.
Democracy is hard work and revolution does not guarantee evolution. Revolution is a critical spark, particularly needed to achieve quantum leaps, but it is unstable and it is transitory. Evolution is the process of growth and development in all things as they transition through the cycles of life and death.
The world wishes Egyptians well as they strive towards their highest ideal. They will need our best wishes and much more. Given history, and the nature of politics, success is a Sisyphean task, and no modern democracy has accomplished it successfully yet. Really: where in the world has democracy truly given birth to the national dream?
The truth is we live in an unsustainable way that is in direct conflict with our very desire for success, whether it is measured by democracy, freedom for all, the end of hunger and poverty, national unity, justice, racial equality, social equity, peace and stability, the pursuit of happiness, independence, whatever the dream.
Yet we must trod on in faith and do our best. Egypt showed us that people are capable, and sometimes driven, to exerting their people power to bring about a revolution. However, most times political electorates are like blind sheep being shepherded and the political directorate is like an abusive lover. In their natural state, and even after a revolution when the dust settles, people most often find themselves beholden to their leaders and powerless in the evolutionary process of governance and nation building.
Politicians
Last week I heard Fred Mitchell, Fox Hill Member of Parliament ask a group of supporters, how we would get young people like Andre Rollins, PLP freshman, National Development Party absconder, their "Egypt moment." That was not surprising to hear, politicians are notorious band-wagonists. But what of this "Egypt moment": what does Egypt and Haiti have to teach us?
First of all, people are rightly amused when they hear politicians talk about revolution. Egypt teaches us that the nature of a true people's revolution is that it is not given to the people. The people make and take the power. In the midst of the revolution political leaders are made virtually irrelevant.
The popular uprising in Egypt was not led by its political opposition. It was a youth movement, wielding people power. This made it infinitely more difficult for a negotiated solution to have emerged, because such a movement has no allegiance to the establishment and little respect for any authority, but its own vision of democracy and freedom. It was not surprising that the people refused to negotiate with President Mubarak. There was no trust in his authority.
Ironically, the military turned out to be the only institution that held public confidence. And it is the military now tasked with the responsibility of bringing about democratic reform, until constitutionally mandated elections are held.
Despite our faith in the electoral process and representational politics, political leadership is no substitute for people power or military power for that matter. We would definitely be telling a different story today if the popular uprising witnessed in Egypt was a movement born of the political opposition. Our next door neighbour Haiti shows us why.
In 2004 a CARICOM team, of which the Bahamas was a party, travelled to Haiti to meet with political actors and help negotiate a resolution to the political unrest threatening the country's stability. During the 2004 protest movement there were calls for President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation.
Supporters
Joshua Sears, director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was a stand off between opposition forces, who "decided Aristide had to go", and supporters wanting the constitutional process to be respected. President Aristide's term was to expire in 13 months.
"They couldn't wait 13 months; they wanted to kick him out. The situation had reached a point where the violence had increased; instability had overwhelmed institutions; there was a social breakdown of law and order. If the parties don't agree there is no chance of any kind of abatement of the violence and for the constitutional process to be respected," said Mr Sears.
Insight into the backdoor dealings raises so many questions about the uprising that threatened the nation's stability and the stability of those with interests. What really happened in Haiti seven years ago? Was it a true people's revolution? Was it a controlled opposition? Was it a political mob that had passed its breaking point?
Egypt showed us a modern day example of a true people's revolution. Haiti brewed a different stew: there were too many sticky political fingers in the pot. I am inclined to think, in the case of Haiti, the decisions made by the various political actors served political and economic ends more than the interests of the people. The three most often do not coincide.
I could be challenged that the uprising was not a true people's revolution, but here is why it feels right.
Political leaders make decisions based on their desire to win political competitions, most notably in the form of elections. Competition is the foundation of modern democracy, and the rules of politics are the same as the rules of a capitalist enterprise. It is a dog eat dog world and it literally is a fight to the top.
Why do you think the Free National Movement and the PLP when they have their political hats on are always fighting? Look at the rhetoric they use, the tactics they employ: the mass of supporters who turn out to political rallies appear as an unruly mob ready to go to war.
These people are beholden to their collective political identities for a number of reasons: pure intent, historical obligation, familial connection, miseducation, ignorance, and selfish interests. Politicians take advantage of them regardless of the reason, because the thing about politics is; the leadership has to be in control. They have to maintain the ability to manoeuvre the mob. So a popular uprising with loyalty to political leaders is in fact a controllable entity.
Naturally there is a breaking point for this type of opposition movement. It is kept in check by the nature and intent of its leaders and most times we can count on our leaders to use their power for the greater good of the few people they can't fully control, in other words affluent people or those with perceived influence.
Based on the nature of politics, I am inclined to believe Haiti's 2004 uprising was a political opposition capable of being led; that good men chose to do nothing allowing evil to prevail. Unlike President Mubarak who eventually caved to the will of the people and stepped down, President Aristide refused to be moved short of being kidnapped, which he said he was.
President Mubarak had seven months left on his term; Aristide had 13. In the case of Egypt, I am certain the people would have asked themselves: why should we respect the constitutional process, which should serve the will of the people, and wait seven months for an election, when for decades Mubarak has governed with little respect for the constitution or the people?
Somehow, President Mubarak must have been convinced that the protest movement was no small fraction or fringe group. It was an honest representation of the people's will. I would imagine President Aristide did not have those same feelings.
Still, President Aristide had many choices that could have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional process and respect for the will of the people. President Aristide insisted he serve out his term, as President Mubarak originally wished to do; he could have chosen to stepped down immediately as President Mubarak stalled in doing.
Unlike Mubarak, who had no choice of running in the next election because the public's trust was so corroded, President Aristide could have stepped downed voluntarily and offered himself again in the next election. A win that time around would have decidedly silenced the critics. He could also have asked to stay, but chosen to call an early election.
Power
Colin Powell once intimated that President Aristide had become arrogant and unreasonable with his allies, and probably his people, which endeared him to neither. I would not venture as far as to compare him with President Mubarak, but I am inclined to believe Aristide had on his mind holding power at all cost for the sake of his personal pride and dignity.
President Mubarak has demonstrated that while history will mark his inglorious departure as a personal failure, it will write an inspiring story of his country. Egypt, a Muslim land, is without a doubt the new beacon of hope for freedom. Egypt's final colonizers still govern its lands, but get this: the beacon of light has returned to Africa.
Haiti in 2004 had no such story to tell. With American and French fingers deep in the pot, and Caribbean interests contending for influence, Haiti had its internal politics to deal with and its external politics. Stability was more important than democracy for the Bahamian government, as well as the French and American governments. Instability would mean a migration influx for the Bahamas, and economic losses for the Americans and French.
So what happened? Aristide somehow ended up on an American government jet headed to the Central African Republic. Aristide's' ouster was the lowest common denominator of agreement between the greatest number of influential forces: external interests and the internal political opposition. One could say the people never determined Aristide's fate: their revolution was hijacked.
President Aristide went to Jamaica from the Central African Republic and then on to South Africa, where he was granted asylum. We will never know if he was really kidnapped by the United States or if he left voluntarily. I think it is probable he was pressured under the threat of being otherwise killed.
At the end of the day, our best hope for knowing what really happened is probably Wikileaks. Short of that it will be a perpetual, he said she said game between self-interested parties. What we do know is that President Aristide's stronghold was proven to be untenable, and his departure did not lead to national solidarity.
This brings us back to my starting point: politics is dirty, deceptive, stubborn and life altering. So much is placed in the hands of our political directorate, but in the midst of their game playing, their manoeuvring of economic interests, we can never be sure if they really do right by us. And yet we give them chance after chance after chance, never stopping to think that the usefulness of a politician has an expiry date.
Do our leaders do their best to make a positive impact in our lives or do they just do enough to stay in the game? Are they morally, spiritually or intellectually capable of knowing the difference?
These are questions for all of us to contemplate, because the actions and inaction of our leaders can change the course of history. The whole world felt the impact of America's warmongering President George W Bush.
There is no doubt, the political instability in Haiti has robbed its people of so many opportunities. For all of its natural wealth, the financial resources of its wealthy elite, its strong intellectual foundations, rich cultural heritage and prized historical legacy, Haiti should want for nothing.
Unfortunately this is not the case. And the turbulent conditions in Haiti combined with our own political game playing have thwarted attempts at building a meaningful relationship between next door neighbours.
I imagine there is some genuine interest, but as Mr Sears explained, it is not an easy road. The repeated interruption of democratic rule over the years has made relationship building, for example, a tightrope to walk.
"In one of the negotiations we had, I think it was with Jean-Robert Estimé, foreign affairs minister, when he left, two weeks later he was out of office. In fact, once we had to deal with six to seven foreign ministers in the space of four years; it was not easy," said Mr Sears.
Leader
Regime change, at almost any cost, has been ingrained in the way "they solve their problems," said Mr Sears. Virtually every political leader is dead or outside the country.
"These are intelligent people. They know continued instability is the consequence of unilateral interruptions of the democratic process. You never give the country a chance for those issues to be set aside. That is a dangerous phenomenon we have witnessed," he said.
With all the lessons we have to learn from Egypt, Haiti and global politics is there any hope of revolution in the Bahamas? I think the odds are against us and the status quo will be our accepted condition for some time to come.
After all, we recently had an Egypt opportunity, to use the phrase loosely, and we squandered it. I think it can be summed up in the story of the day the Prime Minister was driven from the House of Assembly burning tyres with no seatbelt on.
Barring the mass rally, the biggest demonstration of BTC unions was their march to Parliament Square. That was the day Parliament ended early; members of the governing party went fleeing and members of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon.
The actions of our leaders was predictable, but that day I watched in astonishment as the people cowered to the might of the state on two fronts. The people amassed in Parliament Square on the street to the west and on the bleachers to the north. They were cordoned off by police barricades and police officers. At one time, the frontliners made a move to push through the barricades and march to the House. They were successful, to a point.
When the "revolution" started, half of the people fled to the bleachers; they held their position in the comfort of their distance; they divided the opposition. Those were no Egyptian revolutionaries. The efforts of the frontliners was so concerted that had the people stuck together, they would have surly overpowered the flimsy cohort of police and made it to the House.
Sadly, they succeeded only in pushing through to the middle of the road. What they demonstrated was their lack of conviction and their powerlessness. A union member who had broken through the barricades, said: "They have y'all corralled like a bunch of animals. That is how they have you. Y'all look like a bunch of animals." It was true. The police knew this, and they also knew how incensory it would be if the people realized, so they told the protester to "stop that". They had their greatest momentum that day and they broke.
In Egypt the people were prepared to die for their cause and many of them did. Those who survived stepped into the shoes of the dead without hesitation: themselves prepared to go all the way. There was no shortage of conviction or cohesiveness.
The other telling incident that day had to do with union's action to the PLP opposition. When the House of Assembly was adjourned, PLP members of parliament congregated at the site of the demonstration. They did not cross the barricades to join the union members; instead, they hijacked the moment. They assembled their own impromptu press conference by the south side bleachers and sidelined the unions and all their members to put on their own show. Of course the media spotlight shifted to them, and after all of the sound bites and video footage was collected the PLP left. Again, that was expected.
Unions
The unions, they tried sheepishly to compete for the spotlight, shouting over their bullhorns to the corralled mass of sorts.
People tend to forget: the government is comprised of the ruling party and the opposition.
After all, an ineffective opposition makes for an ineffective government.
The PLP opposition is no real friend to the unions and they should have told them so.
Some of the present union leaders admit; had they been in power under the PLP administration, they would have opposed their "bad Blue Water deal" back then as well. But the unions allowed their movement to be hijacked on that day. Egyptian revolutionaries they are not.
In the weeks and months ahead, the world will see what Egypt makes of its revolutionary moment. In the meantime, I am sure, politicians and wannabe revolutionaries across the world will continue with their trite use of the Egyptian moment to further their personal objectives. The true revolutionaries, hopefully, will look beyond the rhetorical gimmicks for the real lessons of Egypt, Haiti and all of the movements, past and present.
February 21, 2011
tribune242 insight
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.
I found this quote on the e-mail signature of Philip "Brave" Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party. Tribune editor in chief, Paco Nunez, once used the same quote as his e-mail signature.
I thought it unsurprising in the latter instance since Mr Nunez also has on his desk a quote from another American journalist, satirist H.L. Mencken that says a journalist is to a politician as a dog is to a lamp-post. But on Mr Davis' signature, I thought it was a classic case of something hidden in plain sight.
Like this timeless quote, Egypt this month lifted the veil on a fundamental nature of politics: it is dirty and deceptive; it is stubborn and it is life altering. What we also saw was an example of what is possible when people awaken, when they are slapped into consciousness and demand accountability from the public masqueraders.
Some Bahamians have already been swept up in the Egyptian revolutionary euphoria, but less their nobleness and naivety lead them astray, they should know, it takes a lot more than rhetoric to make a revolution.
As the Egyptian story unfolded over the past few days and weeks, there was something eerily familiar about the plot. That is because Egypt faced a test that Haiti last took in 2004, and we invigilated it from across the waters. How well Haiti passed is still up for debate, and as the dust settles on the Egyptian streets their results are being tallied.
Both stories, as well as the "pro-democracy movement" that is rippling across the Middle East, have lessons to teach us, about the nature of our politics and our people.
Government
The Indonesian people, who themselves are familiar with people's revolution responded to Egypt's news with cautious jubilation, advising the Egyptian people that the hard part had only just began. Revolution is a temporary moment. It is the gust of wind represented by the hurricane, and its seasonal occurrence is nowhere near as sure or firm. Egyptians now have the task of reconstructing a government and giving birth to the national dream.
Democracy is hard work and revolution does not guarantee evolution. Revolution is a critical spark, particularly needed to achieve quantum leaps, but it is unstable and it is transitory. Evolution is the process of growth and development in all things as they transition through the cycles of life and death.
The world wishes Egyptians well as they strive towards their highest ideal. They will need our best wishes and much more. Given history, and the nature of politics, success is a Sisyphean task, and no modern democracy has accomplished it successfully yet. Really: where in the world has democracy truly given birth to the national dream?
The truth is we live in an unsustainable way that is in direct conflict with our very desire for success, whether it is measured by democracy, freedom for all, the end of hunger and poverty, national unity, justice, racial equality, social equity, peace and stability, the pursuit of happiness, independence, whatever the dream.
Yet we must trod on in faith and do our best. Egypt showed us that people are capable, and sometimes driven, to exerting their people power to bring about a revolution. However, most times political electorates are like blind sheep being shepherded and the political directorate is like an abusive lover. In their natural state, and even after a revolution when the dust settles, people most often find themselves beholden to their leaders and powerless in the evolutionary process of governance and nation building.
Politicians
Last week I heard Fred Mitchell, Fox Hill Member of Parliament ask a group of supporters, how we would get young people like Andre Rollins, PLP freshman, National Development Party absconder, their "Egypt moment." That was not surprising to hear, politicians are notorious band-wagonists. But what of this "Egypt moment": what does Egypt and Haiti have to teach us?
First of all, people are rightly amused when they hear politicians talk about revolution. Egypt teaches us that the nature of a true people's revolution is that it is not given to the people. The people make and take the power. In the midst of the revolution political leaders are made virtually irrelevant.
The popular uprising in Egypt was not led by its political opposition. It was a youth movement, wielding people power. This made it infinitely more difficult for a negotiated solution to have emerged, because such a movement has no allegiance to the establishment and little respect for any authority, but its own vision of democracy and freedom. It was not surprising that the people refused to negotiate with President Mubarak. There was no trust in his authority.
Ironically, the military turned out to be the only institution that held public confidence. And it is the military now tasked with the responsibility of bringing about democratic reform, until constitutionally mandated elections are held.
Despite our faith in the electoral process and representational politics, political leadership is no substitute for people power or military power for that matter. We would definitely be telling a different story today if the popular uprising witnessed in Egypt was a movement born of the political opposition. Our next door neighbour Haiti shows us why.
In 2004 a CARICOM team, of which the Bahamas was a party, travelled to Haiti to meet with political actors and help negotiate a resolution to the political unrest threatening the country's stability. During the 2004 protest movement there were calls for President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation.
Supporters
Joshua Sears, director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was a stand off between opposition forces, who "decided Aristide had to go", and supporters wanting the constitutional process to be respected. President Aristide's term was to expire in 13 months.
"They couldn't wait 13 months; they wanted to kick him out. The situation had reached a point where the violence had increased; instability had overwhelmed institutions; there was a social breakdown of law and order. If the parties don't agree there is no chance of any kind of abatement of the violence and for the constitutional process to be respected," said Mr Sears.
Insight into the backdoor dealings raises so many questions about the uprising that threatened the nation's stability and the stability of those with interests. What really happened in Haiti seven years ago? Was it a true people's revolution? Was it a controlled opposition? Was it a political mob that had passed its breaking point?
Egypt showed us a modern day example of a true people's revolution. Haiti brewed a different stew: there were too many sticky political fingers in the pot. I am inclined to think, in the case of Haiti, the decisions made by the various political actors served political and economic ends more than the interests of the people. The three most often do not coincide.
I could be challenged that the uprising was not a true people's revolution, but here is why it feels right.
Political leaders make decisions based on their desire to win political competitions, most notably in the form of elections. Competition is the foundation of modern democracy, and the rules of politics are the same as the rules of a capitalist enterprise. It is a dog eat dog world and it literally is a fight to the top.
Why do you think the Free National Movement and the PLP when they have their political hats on are always fighting? Look at the rhetoric they use, the tactics they employ: the mass of supporters who turn out to political rallies appear as an unruly mob ready to go to war.
These people are beholden to their collective political identities for a number of reasons: pure intent, historical obligation, familial connection, miseducation, ignorance, and selfish interests. Politicians take advantage of them regardless of the reason, because the thing about politics is; the leadership has to be in control. They have to maintain the ability to manoeuvre the mob. So a popular uprising with loyalty to political leaders is in fact a controllable entity.
Naturally there is a breaking point for this type of opposition movement. It is kept in check by the nature and intent of its leaders and most times we can count on our leaders to use their power for the greater good of the few people they can't fully control, in other words affluent people or those with perceived influence.
Based on the nature of politics, I am inclined to believe Haiti's 2004 uprising was a political opposition capable of being led; that good men chose to do nothing allowing evil to prevail. Unlike President Mubarak who eventually caved to the will of the people and stepped down, President Aristide refused to be moved short of being kidnapped, which he said he was.
President Mubarak had seven months left on his term; Aristide had 13. In the case of Egypt, I am certain the people would have asked themselves: why should we respect the constitutional process, which should serve the will of the people, and wait seven months for an election, when for decades Mubarak has governed with little respect for the constitution or the people?
Somehow, President Mubarak must have been convinced that the protest movement was no small fraction or fringe group. It was an honest representation of the people's will. I would imagine President Aristide did not have those same feelings.
Still, President Aristide had many choices that could have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional process and respect for the will of the people. President Aristide insisted he serve out his term, as President Mubarak originally wished to do; he could have chosen to stepped down immediately as President Mubarak stalled in doing.
Unlike Mubarak, who had no choice of running in the next election because the public's trust was so corroded, President Aristide could have stepped downed voluntarily and offered himself again in the next election. A win that time around would have decidedly silenced the critics. He could also have asked to stay, but chosen to call an early election.
Power
Colin Powell once intimated that President Aristide had become arrogant and unreasonable with his allies, and probably his people, which endeared him to neither. I would not venture as far as to compare him with President Mubarak, but I am inclined to believe Aristide had on his mind holding power at all cost for the sake of his personal pride and dignity.
President Mubarak has demonstrated that while history will mark his inglorious departure as a personal failure, it will write an inspiring story of his country. Egypt, a Muslim land, is without a doubt the new beacon of hope for freedom. Egypt's final colonizers still govern its lands, but get this: the beacon of light has returned to Africa.
Haiti in 2004 had no such story to tell. With American and French fingers deep in the pot, and Caribbean interests contending for influence, Haiti had its internal politics to deal with and its external politics. Stability was more important than democracy for the Bahamian government, as well as the French and American governments. Instability would mean a migration influx for the Bahamas, and economic losses for the Americans and French.
So what happened? Aristide somehow ended up on an American government jet headed to the Central African Republic. Aristide's' ouster was the lowest common denominator of agreement between the greatest number of influential forces: external interests and the internal political opposition. One could say the people never determined Aristide's fate: their revolution was hijacked.
President Aristide went to Jamaica from the Central African Republic and then on to South Africa, where he was granted asylum. We will never know if he was really kidnapped by the United States or if he left voluntarily. I think it is probable he was pressured under the threat of being otherwise killed.
At the end of the day, our best hope for knowing what really happened is probably Wikileaks. Short of that it will be a perpetual, he said she said game between self-interested parties. What we do know is that President Aristide's stronghold was proven to be untenable, and his departure did not lead to national solidarity.
This brings us back to my starting point: politics is dirty, deceptive, stubborn and life altering. So much is placed in the hands of our political directorate, but in the midst of their game playing, their manoeuvring of economic interests, we can never be sure if they really do right by us. And yet we give them chance after chance after chance, never stopping to think that the usefulness of a politician has an expiry date.
Do our leaders do their best to make a positive impact in our lives or do they just do enough to stay in the game? Are they morally, spiritually or intellectually capable of knowing the difference?
These are questions for all of us to contemplate, because the actions and inaction of our leaders can change the course of history. The whole world felt the impact of America's warmongering President George W Bush.
There is no doubt, the political instability in Haiti has robbed its people of so many opportunities. For all of its natural wealth, the financial resources of its wealthy elite, its strong intellectual foundations, rich cultural heritage and prized historical legacy, Haiti should want for nothing.
Unfortunately this is not the case. And the turbulent conditions in Haiti combined with our own political game playing have thwarted attempts at building a meaningful relationship between next door neighbours.
I imagine there is some genuine interest, but as Mr Sears explained, it is not an easy road. The repeated interruption of democratic rule over the years has made relationship building, for example, a tightrope to walk.
"In one of the negotiations we had, I think it was with Jean-Robert Estimé, foreign affairs minister, when he left, two weeks later he was out of office. In fact, once we had to deal with six to seven foreign ministers in the space of four years; it was not easy," said Mr Sears.
Leader
Regime change, at almost any cost, has been ingrained in the way "they solve their problems," said Mr Sears. Virtually every political leader is dead or outside the country.
"These are intelligent people. They know continued instability is the consequence of unilateral interruptions of the democratic process. You never give the country a chance for those issues to be set aside. That is a dangerous phenomenon we have witnessed," he said.
With all the lessons we have to learn from Egypt, Haiti and global politics is there any hope of revolution in the Bahamas? I think the odds are against us and the status quo will be our accepted condition for some time to come.
After all, we recently had an Egypt opportunity, to use the phrase loosely, and we squandered it. I think it can be summed up in the story of the day the Prime Minister was driven from the House of Assembly burning tyres with no seatbelt on.
Barring the mass rally, the biggest demonstration of BTC unions was their march to Parliament Square. That was the day Parliament ended early; members of the governing party went fleeing and members of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon.
The actions of our leaders was predictable, but that day I watched in astonishment as the people cowered to the might of the state on two fronts. The people amassed in Parliament Square on the street to the west and on the bleachers to the north. They were cordoned off by police barricades and police officers. At one time, the frontliners made a move to push through the barricades and march to the House. They were successful, to a point.
When the "revolution" started, half of the people fled to the bleachers; they held their position in the comfort of their distance; they divided the opposition. Those were no Egyptian revolutionaries. The efforts of the frontliners was so concerted that had the people stuck together, they would have surly overpowered the flimsy cohort of police and made it to the House.
Sadly, they succeeded only in pushing through to the middle of the road. What they demonstrated was their lack of conviction and their powerlessness. A union member who had broken through the barricades, said: "They have y'all corralled like a bunch of animals. That is how they have you. Y'all look like a bunch of animals." It was true. The police knew this, and they also knew how incensory it would be if the people realized, so they told the protester to "stop that". They had their greatest momentum that day and they broke.
In Egypt the people were prepared to die for their cause and many of them did. Those who survived stepped into the shoes of the dead without hesitation: themselves prepared to go all the way. There was no shortage of conviction or cohesiveness.
The other telling incident that day had to do with union's action to the PLP opposition. When the House of Assembly was adjourned, PLP members of parliament congregated at the site of the demonstration. They did not cross the barricades to join the union members; instead, they hijacked the moment. They assembled their own impromptu press conference by the south side bleachers and sidelined the unions and all their members to put on their own show. Of course the media spotlight shifted to them, and after all of the sound bites and video footage was collected the PLP left. Again, that was expected.
Unions
The unions, they tried sheepishly to compete for the spotlight, shouting over their bullhorns to the corralled mass of sorts.
People tend to forget: the government is comprised of the ruling party and the opposition.
After all, an ineffective opposition makes for an ineffective government.
The PLP opposition is no real friend to the unions and they should have told them so.
Some of the present union leaders admit; had they been in power under the PLP administration, they would have opposed their "bad Blue Water deal" back then as well. But the unions allowed their movement to be hijacked on that day. Egyptian revolutionaries they are not.
In the weeks and months ahead, the world will see what Egypt makes of its revolutionary moment. In the meantime, I am sure, politicians and wannabe revolutionaries across the world will continue with their trite use of the Egyptian moment to further their personal objectives. The true revolutionaries, hopefully, will look beyond the rhetorical gimmicks for the real lessons of Egypt, Haiti and all of the movements, past and present.
February 21, 2011
tribune242 insight
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
After Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) president Bernard Evans would have destroyed The Bahamas, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
Union leader promises a 'small Egypt'
tribune242 editorial
YESTERDAY the Government laid on the table of the House the much anticipated agreement to sell 51 per cent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless Communications. The transaction is still subject to parliamentary and regulatory approvals.
Opposition leader Perry Christie quickly announced that his party will not support the sale. He said the Opposition was particularly "grieved that even though the decision was made to sell, the decision was made to sell 51 per cent." To him that was "an error of judgment on the part of this government and certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of the Bahamas."
We know that Mr Christie, a lawyer, probably does not have much practical experience in the business world, but when a purchaser is so hobbled in a sale -- as is Cable & Wireless -- the vendor has to relinquish something to keep him interested in the purchase. An early snag in the negotiations was C&W's need to slash 30 per cent of BTC's 1,150 work force to put the company in a position to compete in an open market. Obviously, Mr Ingraham, fighting desperately to save BTC jobs and making it clear that his government would not tolerate any forced redundancies, had to somehow "sweeten the pie" to keep C&W at the negotiating table. Many benefits, such as very generous pensions among other perks, had to be protected for current staff.
We presume 51 per cent and the three year period of exclusivity for its cellular service had to be the bait to clinch the deal.
And yet BTC employees are screaming that government is not thinking of the Bahamian people. Maybe they have a point there. An argument can be made that in his effort to protect BTC staff, he did indeed defer many of the benefits that the Bahamian people want now for another three years. This is to protect BTC staff and give them time to decide their future.
If this had been an ordinary sale -- or even if BTC workers had become the owners of the company -- reality would have set in very quickly. They would have become business men and women overnight, and about 300 staff would have had to have been made redundant immediately for the overburdened company to survive.
We presume that 51 per cent was the price that government had to pay to protect the jobs of many ungrateful staff.
Denise Wilson, BCPOU secretary general, declared that even though some Bahamians might not understand why unions are continuing to fight the sale, "it comes down to our rights." We understand only too well why they are fighting, they are not thinking of the country, or the Bahamians who pay their salaries, their focus is solely on themselves.
As for BCPOU president Bernard Evans, despite wanting us to believe that unionists are fighting the sale for the sake of future generations, he has vowed to turn this country into a "small Egypt." Those of us who have watched television these past two weeks know exactly what that means -- destruction. And after he has destroyed the nation, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
He talks about showing the strength of the people.
Mr Evans is fooling himself if he thinks his minority, now trying to hold the government hostage, represents the will of the majority of Bahamians.
"I want to apologise right now publicly to all of our valued customers," said Mr Evans. "Be patient with us, but needless to say that services will be affected somewhat. Be patient with us, we are fighting for a cause we believe, we know, is bigger than BTC's members and employees. We are fighting for the future of our children."
Mr Evans forgets that Bahamians have been patient will their performance for too long now. The patience of most of us has run out.
Either the Bahamas is going to forge ahead for the sake of our children, or it is going to be held back in the cesspool of inefficiency.
After Mr Evans has turned us into another Egypt and jeopardised the jobs of all Bahamians, there won't be much left for another generation.
Nor have we any patience with an unreasonable people who reject an invitation to at least sit down and have a discussion with the Prime Minister.
What should be remembered is that Prime Minister Ingraham is the elected representative of the Bahamian people, not Mr Evans or union leaders.
February 09, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
YESTERDAY the Government laid on the table of the House the much anticipated agreement to sell 51 per cent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless Communications. The transaction is still subject to parliamentary and regulatory approvals.
Opposition leader Perry Christie quickly announced that his party will not support the sale. He said the Opposition was particularly "grieved that even though the decision was made to sell, the decision was made to sell 51 per cent." To him that was "an error of judgment on the part of this government and certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of the Bahamas."
We know that Mr Christie, a lawyer, probably does not have much practical experience in the business world, but when a purchaser is so hobbled in a sale -- as is Cable & Wireless -- the vendor has to relinquish something to keep him interested in the purchase. An early snag in the negotiations was C&W's need to slash 30 per cent of BTC's 1,150 work force to put the company in a position to compete in an open market. Obviously, Mr Ingraham, fighting desperately to save BTC jobs and making it clear that his government would not tolerate any forced redundancies, had to somehow "sweeten the pie" to keep C&W at the negotiating table. Many benefits, such as very generous pensions among other perks, had to be protected for current staff.
We presume 51 per cent and the three year period of exclusivity for its cellular service had to be the bait to clinch the deal.
And yet BTC employees are screaming that government is not thinking of the Bahamian people. Maybe they have a point there. An argument can be made that in his effort to protect BTC staff, he did indeed defer many of the benefits that the Bahamian people want now for another three years. This is to protect BTC staff and give them time to decide their future.
If this had been an ordinary sale -- or even if BTC workers had become the owners of the company -- reality would have set in very quickly. They would have become business men and women overnight, and about 300 staff would have had to have been made redundant immediately for the overburdened company to survive.
We presume that 51 per cent was the price that government had to pay to protect the jobs of many ungrateful staff.
Denise Wilson, BCPOU secretary general, declared that even though some Bahamians might not understand why unions are continuing to fight the sale, "it comes down to our rights." We understand only too well why they are fighting, they are not thinking of the country, or the Bahamians who pay their salaries, their focus is solely on themselves.
As for BCPOU president Bernard Evans, despite wanting us to believe that unionists are fighting the sale for the sake of future generations, he has vowed to turn this country into a "small Egypt." Those of us who have watched television these past two weeks know exactly what that means -- destruction. And after he has destroyed the nation, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
He talks about showing the strength of the people.
Mr Evans is fooling himself if he thinks his minority, now trying to hold the government hostage, represents the will of the majority of Bahamians.
"I want to apologise right now publicly to all of our valued customers," said Mr Evans. "Be patient with us, but needless to say that services will be affected somewhat. Be patient with us, we are fighting for a cause we believe, we know, is bigger than BTC's members and employees. We are fighting for the future of our children."
Mr Evans forgets that Bahamians have been patient will their performance for too long now. The patience of most of us has run out.
Either the Bahamas is going to forge ahead for the sake of our children, or it is going to be held back in the cesspool of inefficiency.
After Mr Evans has turned us into another Egypt and jeopardised the jobs of all Bahamians, there won't be much left for another generation.
Nor have we any patience with an unreasonable people who reject an invitation to at least sit down and have a discussion with the Prime Minister.
What should be remembered is that Prime Minister Ingraham is the elected representative of the Bahamian people, not Mr Evans or union leaders.
February 09, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatisation: 1999 to 2011
Privatisation of BTC: from 1999 to 2011
By LARRY SMITH
"What I've found out about change is that when you propose it
people don't want it, when you are doing it it's hell, and afterwards
they think it's always been like that."
- former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
IN EARLY 2008, about 10 months after the last general election, the Ingraham government appointed a new privatisation committee (headed by bankers T. B. Donaldson and Julian Francis), with a mandate to find a buyer for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company as soon as possible.
This was a goal that had been pursued ever since the FNM first came to power in 1992. In fact, even before then the Pindling regime had been seeking to divest state assets that were draining the treasury. By the early 90s the PLP had decided to offload government-owned hotels. And believe it or not, they also had confidential talks with Cable & Wireless about a stake in BaTelCo.
Privatisation continued to be pursued by the PLP during its most recent term in office, from 2002 to 2007. Although the Christie administration eventually cancelled the auction launched by the FNM, they went on to start their own process, and agreed (just before the 2007 election) to sell BTC to Bluewater Ventures, a foreign firm with an uncertain ownership and no operating history.
But the incoming FNM government could find no evidence that a deal had been finalised, although Bluewater - in the shape of American executive John Gregg and PLP politico/lawyer Brave Davis - insisted that the Christie cabinet had shaken hands on an agreement. In mid-2008, the Ingraham administration relaunched the privatisation process, eventually paying Bluewater $1.9 million to cover its out-of-pocket costs.
THE FIRST PRIVATISATION
This was surely a damnable waste of money, but the reasoning behind it was clear. The policy had always been to sell a stake in BTC to a major strategic partner - a company with the technical expertise, operating record, and bulk purchasing power needed to take the corporation to another level. There was no interest in selling to someone who merely had the financial capacity to buy.
In 1999, during the first privatisation exercise, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that if the government simply transferred ownership of BTC to its employees, the corporation would go out of business as soon as it faced real competition. A strategic partner, he said, would enable BTC to compete and move forward in a transformed market.
"We seek to privatise BTC in the national interest," Ingraham said a decade ago, "and we have sought a phased approach to ensure minimal disruption." More recently he said: "We told Bahamians from day one that it was not possible to continue to have a monopoly in the telephone business and we established policies to prepare ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the telecoms sector who were not so employed before we began to liberalise the market."
Before the government began downsizing BaTelCo in the mid-90s, the corporation had accumulated a workforce of 2100 to accomplish what experts said should require only a few hundred. And this padded payroll was clearly reflected in BaTelCo's dismal performance up to that point.
In 1992 the corporation's revenue was $120.3 million, with a net loss of $1.8 million that year. But after a 50 per cent reduction in staff (based on generous separation packages), BaTelCo's 2001 revenue was $226.4 million, producing a net profit of $57.3 million - almost as much as the corporation had earned over 10 years from 1982 to 1992.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
In 2008, the government appointed an advisory committee to oversee the new BTC sale process, under the chairmanship of State Finance Minister Zhivago Laing. This group would formulate the final recommendations to cabinet from information presented by the privatisation committee (headed by Donaldson and Francis). The leaders of both BTC unions were full members of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee authorised a new BTC auction in mid-2009, with the publication of a notice inviting bidders to register. Qualified parties were asked for technical proposals, and the best of these were invited to submit financial bids. The privatisation committee reviewed the bids and passed them on to the advisory committee for evaluation.
At the same time, major changes to the regulatory environment were being pursued to support market liberalisation. These included legislation to set up a new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority to govern both broadcasting and telecommunications. In short, the government was totally reforming our antiquated communications laws.
According to the April 29, 2009 minutes of the advisory committee, Minister Laing said the new legislation was the result of "a vast amount of work and represented a new era for the Bahamas" that would bring clarity to what could, and could not, be done in the telecoms industry.
UNION ISSUES
At the July 13, 2009 meeting of the advisory committee, Minister Earl Deveaux recalled that during the first privatisation exercise, BTC workers rejected the decision and responded "in a way that brought great distress to the nation." He asked the union leaders for assurances that this would not be repeated. The BCPMU is the middle managers union. The BCPOU is the line staff union.
At that meeting BCPMU president William Carroll said the major issue for the unions in 1999 had been the separation packages, and that was why workers demonstrated. He added that treatment of staff should be one of the determinants for a successful bid, but went on to acknowledge that BTC employees now accepted the fact of imminent privatisation.
In response to a comment from BCPOU leader Bernard Evans that Bahamian buyers had been excluded from the process, Minister Laing said the search was for a strategic partner who would have the financial and technological resources to "take BTC to the level at which the government wanted it to be." That position did not necessarily exclude Bahamian proposals, but it was unlikely that a Bahamian group would fit the bill.
According to the minutes, Minister Carl Bethel said the government wanted a strong international connection, a company with experience in all areas of telecommunications and with the financial strength and operating platform to be able to support BTC's infrastructure and mission. He questioned whether any Bahamian entity possessed those qualities.
Minister Laing said that unlike the previous attempt, this time the government was not seeking to shape the product that was on offer, outside of its conviction that privatising BTC would be better for the country, for the economy, and ultimately for the workers. The government was reforming the regulatory environment and selling BTC as it exists today, and the role of the advisory committee was to determine the best buyer.
CABLE & WIRELESS
The BTC auction notice attracted six initial responses, and four were invited to submit bids. Only two were received by the December 11, 2009 deadline - from JPMorgan Chase's private equity arm and from Atlantic Tele-Network, a consortium that included Colina Financial Advisors. Neither was considered to have met the government's criteria.
According to minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting, the advisory committee unanimously rejected both bids as "departing significantly in their requirements and expectations from the conditions acceptable to the government."
The committee was then informed by Julian Francis that, following its recent restructuring, Cable & Wireless had expressed an interest in BTC. While both union leaders had reservations about C&W in terms of employee relations, the advisory committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to engage in talks with the company, which is a major regional and international telecoms operator.
In October of last year, the advisory committee met for the final time to consider the report of the working committee on its talks with Cable & Wireless. According to Julian Francis, a non-binding memorandum of understanding had been drafted that valued BTC at $400-450 million, based on a two-year exclusivity period.
"However, Cable & Wireless believes that an extension may be necessary for BTC to prepare for competition, which would be aggressive given the low threshold for investment under the new regulatory regime," Francis said. "In comparison, the Bluewater proposal was for a five-year exclusivity period for mobile, with each year being valued at between $60-70 million by the committee's advisors."
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francis said the MOU called for Cable & Wireless to produce a five-year business plan acceptable to government before a deal could be closed. This plan would spell out Bahamian involvement in the management of BTC and Cable & Wireless' international operations.
Going forward, he said, the government wanted to have a veto over remuneration, staff cuts, the sale of assets and the location of operations. According to Francis, Cable & Wireless was "convinced that BTC should be run by a Bahamian and the government had indicated that management must remain in the Bahamas."
Both union leaders reiterated their focus on job protection, but Minister Deveaux pointed out that taxpayers wanted better service. Sir William Allen, the government's economic advisor, said technology would continue to erode whatever advantages BTC currently had, even if the market was not liberalised.
With respect to workforce restructuring, BCPOU leader Bernard Evans said "voluntary separation packages are an acceptable option once the terms are suitable." Minister Laing responded that there was room for standstill, with compulsory reductions tied to the end of the exclusivity period. Both union leaders agreed that a three or four year exclusivity period would be "more manageable" in this regard.
The advisory committee agreed to recommend only voluntary staff cuts prior to the end of the exclusivity period, and urged government to extend this period "to help with job preservation in the short term." In a closing note, the October minutes recorded that the committee's recommendations would be passed to government for a final decision, with Minister Laing satisfied that that "all major issues have been discussed and agreement reached."
On December 2, the government announced the signing of the memorandum of understanding, as recommended by the advisory committee, on the same day it was signed. Talks then began to develop more precise contract language to clarify all issues. The agreement included a three-year exclusivity period for mobile and a voluntary workforce restructuring.
POLITICAL RESISTANCE
But within days of that announcement, the two union leaders and the PLP had begun a drumbeat of opposition to the deal - which was already 13 years too late. "This is just not the right time," said BCPOU leader Evans. "We don't support Cable & Wireless - period." He insisted that separation packages offered to workers should be more than BTC employees got in 1999 (which cost the country some $90 million), and should be enough to last workers a lifetime.
According to the prime minister, "the PLP agreed just before the election to sell BTC to a foreigner, who some think was fronting for some of them. And they never told the public a single word that they agreed to sell BTC. The reality is that the union and the PLP are at one in their fight against this exercise. And you can figure out why the PLP, which agreed to sell to a one-man show, is now opposed to selling to a $2.5 billion publicly traded company that operates around the world.
As the minutes of the advisory committee show, the plain fact is that the union leaders were part and parcel of the entire privatisation process, and after seeking concessions from the government they signed off on the major components of the memorandum of understanding.
"We went out of our way to protect jobs at BTC to the public's disadvantage," the prime minister told a meeting in Grand Bahama recently. "As night follows day, rates are high because BTC has more people employed than they need, and they are seeking to protect what they have because there's plenty juice there for them."
As for the prospects of general strike similar to that which occurred in 1958, it seems clear that the BTC unions' action is a greedy attempt on the part of special interests to hold the nation to ransom rather than a struggle for democracy. And as for the question of Bahamian as opposed to foreign ownership, why hasn't this been raised before?
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
January 12, 2011
tribune242
By LARRY SMITH
"What I've found out about change is that when you propose it
people don't want it, when you are doing it it's hell, and afterwards
they think it's always been like that."
- former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
IN EARLY 2008, about 10 months after the last general election, the Ingraham government appointed a new privatisation committee (headed by bankers T. B. Donaldson and Julian Francis), with a mandate to find a buyer for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company as soon as possible.
This was a goal that had been pursued ever since the FNM first came to power in 1992. In fact, even before then the Pindling regime had been seeking to divest state assets that were draining the treasury. By the early 90s the PLP had decided to offload government-owned hotels. And believe it or not, they also had confidential talks with Cable & Wireless about a stake in BaTelCo.
Privatisation continued to be pursued by the PLP during its most recent term in office, from 2002 to 2007. Although the Christie administration eventually cancelled the auction launched by the FNM, they went on to start their own process, and agreed (just before the 2007 election) to sell BTC to Bluewater Ventures, a foreign firm with an uncertain ownership and no operating history.
But the incoming FNM government could find no evidence that a deal had been finalised, although Bluewater - in the shape of American executive John Gregg and PLP politico/lawyer Brave Davis - insisted that the Christie cabinet had shaken hands on an agreement. In mid-2008, the Ingraham administration relaunched the privatisation process, eventually paying Bluewater $1.9 million to cover its out-of-pocket costs.
THE FIRST PRIVATISATION
This was surely a damnable waste of money, but the reasoning behind it was clear. The policy had always been to sell a stake in BTC to a major strategic partner - a company with the technical expertise, operating record, and bulk purchasing power needed to take the corporation to another level. There was no interest in selling to someone who merely had the financial capacity to buy.
In 1999, during the first privatisation exercise, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that if the government simply transferred ownership of BTC to its employees, the corporation would go out of business as soon as it faced real competition. A strategic partner, he said, would enable BTC to compete and move forward in a transformed market.
"We seek to privatise BTC in the national interest," Ingraham said a decade ago, "and we have sought a phased approach to ensure minimal disruption." More recently he said: "We told Bahamians from day one that it was not possible to continue to have a monopoly in the telephone business and we established policies to prepare ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the telecoms sector who were not so employed before we began to liberalise the market."
Before the government began downsizing BaTelCo in the mid-90s, the corporation had accumulated a workforce of 2100 to accomplish what experts said should require only a few hundred. And this padded payroll was clearly reflected in BaTelCo's dismal performance up to that point.
In 1992 the corporation's revenue was $120.3 million, with a net loss of $1.8 million that year. But after a 50 per cent reduction in staff (based on generous separation packages), BaTelCo's 2001 revenue was $226.4 million, producing a net profit of $57.3 million - almost as much as the corporation had earned over 10 years from 1982 to 1992.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
In 2008, the government appointed an advisory committee to oversee the new BTC sale process, under the chairmanship of State Finance Minister Zhivago Laing. This group would formulate the final recommendations to cabinet from information presented by the privatisation committee (headed by Donaldson and Francis). The leaders of both BTC unions were full members of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee authorised a new BTC auction in mid-2009, with the publication of a notice inviting bidders to register. Qualified parties were asked for technical proposals, and the best of these were invited to submit financial bids. The privatisation committee reviewed the bids and passed them on to the advisory committee for evaluation.
At the same time, major changes to the regulatory environment were being pursued to support market liberalisation. These included legislation to set up a new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority to govern both broadcasting and telecommunications. In short, the government was totally reforming our antiquated communications laws.
According to the April 29, 2009 minutes of the advisory committee, Minister Laing said the new legislation was the result of "a vast amount of work and represented a new era for the Bahamas" that would bring clarity to what could, and could not, be done in the telecoms industry.
UNION ISSUES
At the July 13, 2009 meeting of the advisory committee, Minister Earl Deveaux recalled that during the first privatisation exercise, BTC workers rejected the decision and responded "in a way that brought great distress to the nation." He asked the union leaders for assurances that this would not be repeated. The BCPMU is the middle managers union. The BCPOU is the line staff union.
At that meeting BCPMU president William Carroll said the major issue for the unions in 1999 had been the separation packages, and that was why workers demonstrated. He added that treatment of staff should be one of the determinants for a successful bid, but went on to acknowledge that BTC employees now accepted the fact of imminent privatisation.
In response to a comment from BCPOU leader Bernard Evans that Bahamian buyers had been excluded from the process, Minister Laing said the search was for a strategic partner who would have the financial and technological resources to "take BTC to the level at which the government wanted it to be." That position did not necessarily exclude Bahamian proposals, but it was unlikely that a Bahamian group would fit the bill.
According to the minutes, Minister Carl Bethel said the government wanted a strong international connection, a company with experience in all areas of telecommunications and with the financial strength and operating platform to be able to support BTC's infrastructure and mission. He questioned whether any Bahamian entity possessed those qualities.
Minister Laing said that unlike the previous attempt, this time the government was not seeking to shape the product that was on offer, outside of its conviction that privatising BTC would be better for the country, for the economy, and ultimately for the workers. The government was reforming the regulatory environment and selling BTC as it exists today, and the role of the advisory committee was to determine the best buyer.
CABLE & WIRELESS
The BTC auction notice attracted six initial responses, and four were invited to submit bids. Only two were received by the December 11, 2009 deadline - from JPMorgan Chase's private equity arm and from Atlantic Tele-Network, a consortium that included Colina Financial Advisors. Neither was considered to have met the government's criteria.
According to minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting, the advisory committee unanimously rejected both bids as "departing significantly in their requirements and expectations from the conditions acceptable to the government."
The committee was then informed by Julian Francis that, following its recent restructuring, Cable & Wireless had expressed an interest in BTC. While both union leaders had reservations about C&W in terms of employee relations, the advisory committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to engage in talks with the company, which is a major regional and international telecoms operator.
In October of last year, the advisory committee met for the final time to consider the report of the working committee on its talks with Cable & Wireless. According to Julian Francis, a non-binding memorandum of understanding had been drafted that valued BTC at $400-450 million, based on a two-year exclusivity period.
"However, Cable & Wireless believes that an extension may be necessary for BTC to prepare for competition, which would be aggressive given the low threshold for investment under the new regulatory regime," Francis said. "In comparison, the Bluewater proposal was for a five-year exclusivity period for mobile, with each year being valued at between $60-70 million by the committee's advisors."
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francis said the MOU called for Cable & Wireless to produce a five-year business plan acceptable to government before a deal could be closed. This plan would spell out Bahamian involvement in the management of BTC and Cable & Wireless' international operations.
Going forward, he said, the government wanted to have a veto over remuneration, staff cuts, the sale of assets and the location of operations. According to Francis, Cable & Wireless was "convinced that BTC should be run by a Bahamian and the government had indicated that management must remain in the Bahamas."
Both union leaders reiterated their focus on job protection, but Minister Deveaux pointed out that taxpayers wanted better service. Sir William Allen, the government's economic advisor, said technology would continue to erode whatever advantages BTC currently had, even if the market was not liberalised.
With respect to workforce restructuring, BCPOU leader Bernard Evans said "voluntary separation packages are an acceptable option once the terms are suitable." Minister Laing responded that there was room for standstill, with compulsory reductions tied to the end of the exclusivity period. Both union leaders agreed that a three or four year exclusivity period would be "more manageable" in this regard.
The advisory committee agreed to recommend only voluntary staff cuts prior to the end of the exclusivity period, and urged government to extend this period "to help with job preservation in the short term." In a closing note, the October minutes recorded that the committee's recommendations would be passed to government for a final decision, with Minister Laing satisfied that that "all major issues have been discussed and agreement reached."
On December 2, the government announced the signing of the memorandum of understanding, as recommended by the advisory committee, on the same day it was signed. Talks then began to develop more precise contract language to clarify all issues. The agreement included a three-year exclusivity period for mobile and a voluntary workforce restructuring.
POLITICAL RESISTANCE
But within days of that announcement, the two union leaders and the PLP had begun a drumbeat of opposition to the deal - which was already 13 years too late. "This is just not the right time," said BCPOU leader Evans. "We don't support Cable & Wireless - period." He insisted that separation packages offered to workers should be more than BTC employees got in 1999 (which cost the country some $90 million), and should be enough to last workers a lifetime.
According to the prime minister, "the PLP agreed just before the election to sell BTC to a foreigner, who some think was fronting for some of them. And they never told the public a single word that they agreed to sell BTC. The reality is that the union and the PLP are at one in their fight against this exercise. And you can figure out why the PLP, which agreed to sell to a one-man show, is now opposed to selling to a $2.5 billion publicly traded company that operates around the world.
As the minutes of the advisory committee show, the plain fact is that the union leaders were part and parcel of the entire privatisation process, and after seeking concessions from the government they signed off on the major components of the memorandum of understanding.
"We went out of our way to protect jobs at BTC to the public's disadvantage," the prime minister told a meeting in Grand Bahama recently. "As night follows day, rates are high because BTC has more people employed than they need, and they are seeking to protect what they have because there's plenty juice there for them."
As for the prospects of general strike similar to that which occurred in 1958, it seems clear that the BTC unions' action is a greedy attempt on the part of special interests to hold the nation to ransom rather than a struggle for democracy. And as for the question of Bahamian as opposed to foreign ownership, why hasn't this been raised before?
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
January 12, 2011
tribune242
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The love of foreigners over Bahamians by the PLP and FNM when it comes to the BTC privatization process...
Selling BTC a threat to national development
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Echoes of a General Strike
The Bahama Journal Editorial
For better or worse, there are lessons that always come with the struggle for power; whether this battle has to do with who gets to determine how money is spent in a household, in an organization anywhere civil society, in a firm or at the state level.
Even more simply, politics is about who gets what, when, where and how; in addition, it is also about the definition of that party or individual whose will must be obeyed.
In other words, then, as in our own fledgling democracy; the question today arises concerning whether the governing party should, would or could yield to demands currently being made by some of this nation’s union leadership.
Among the instruments they say they have is that one that allows them to withdraw their labor and that of their membership in the event that the governing party does not yield to their demands.
We seriously doubt that, they have this level of support.
In addition, the fact remains that, this is just not the way things are done in today’s Bahamas.
Indeed, while unions and their membership do have the right to protest any policy they see fit; and even though they do have the right to take the government to court, they do not have any real right to hold any government hostage.
And for sure, it is a fact that the governing party has a mandate to lead and that –as such – they are called upon to lead. They also have promises to be kept.
Clearly, then, no right-thinking government should ever put itself in a position where it must endlessly consult with everyone; or for that matter, anyone else other than those given a similar mandate by the people.
This comes as a direct result of the free vote and expression of the people in free and fair elections.
Thereafter, the government leads and its Loyal Opposition opposes; with one party having its sway and the other its say.
We dare say that, anything else is a clear invitation to both foolishness and anarchy.
While we do believe all of what we are saying; we hasten to add that, no government worth its salt would ever so paint itself into a corner by alienating the masses of people who identify themselves as workers.
But by the same token, union leadership must always be mindful that while they are called to lead, this call must always be tempered by what is in the very best interests of their followers.
What makes this situation so very important is the fact that workers are voters. This means that whenever they wish, they can bring a government to grief and despair. These workers who are also voters know as well as anyone else that the choices they make can determine whether one side wins or the other loses.
This means that when workers become restive enough, their approval of this or that politician matters greatly.
Compounding the matter in the Bahamian case is the fact that the Bahamian labor force is compact, well organized, knows and feels its power.
Politicians who wish to be re-elected cannot ignore these people and their demands.
No politician worth his salt would ever dare express contempt or disdain for those voters who are workers.
We make this obvious point as we try to make sense of what seems increased restiveness on the part of very many public sector workers.
On occasion, their main gripe seems to concern money. At other times, workers and their representatives seem to be preoccupied with matters germane to respect.
In addition, there are times like the ones in which we live where some union leaders seem to have reached that point where – like politicians in their guise as law-makers – they would pontificate on matters germane to policy.
Here they are embarked –as it were – on a journey without maps; and here we are reminded that, history does not repeat itself.
We make this point as we reflect on some of what is today being said about how today’s political climate is seemingly reminiscent of that era in the late 1950’s when there was both call and response to the idea of a General Strike.
That great call was made by Randol F. Fawkes, Clifford Darling and Lynden O. Pindling.
Out of this great struggle has come a modern Bahamas where the rights of workers are enshrined in the law.
This we do in free and fair elections.
All else is anathema.
In the final analysis, then, law-making and policy should be left where the Constitution places them – squarely and fully in the hands of this nation’s parliamentarians.
That is why we boast so much about the longevity of parliamentary democracy in the Bahamas.
January 06, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
For better or worse, there are lessons that always come with the struggle for power; whether this battle has to do with who gets to determine how money is spent in a household, in an organization anywhere civil society, in a firm or at the state level.
Even more simply, politics is about who gets what, when, where and how; in addition, it is also about the definition of that party or individual whose will must be obeyed.
In other words, then, as in our own fledgling democracy; the question today arises concerning whether the governing party should, would or could yield to demands currently being made by some of this nation’s union leadership.
Among the instruments they say they have is that one that allows them to withdraw their labor and that of their membership in the event that the governing party does not yield to their demands.
We seriously doubt that, they have this level of support.
In addition, the fact remains that, this is just not the way things are done in today’s Bahamas.
Indeed, while unions and their membership do have the right to protest any policy they see fit; and even though they do have the right to take the government to court, they do not have any real right to hold any government hostage.
And for sure, it is a fact that the governing party has a mandate to lead and that –as such – they are called upon to lead. They also have promises to be kept.
Clearly, then, no right-thinking government should ever put itself in a position where it must endlessly consult with everyone; or for that matter, anyone else other than those given a similar mandate by the people.
This comes as a direct result of the free vote and expression of the people in free and fair elections.
Thereafter, the government leads and its Loyal Opposition opposes; with one party having its sway and the other its say.
We dare say that, anything else is a clear invitation to both foolishness and anarchy.
While we do believe all of what we are saying; we hasten to add that, no government worth its salt would ever so paint itself into a corner by alienating the masses of people who identify themselves as workers.
But by the same token, union leadership must always be mindful that while they are called to lead, this call must always be tempered by what is in the very best interests of their followers.
What makes this situation so very important is the fact that workers are voters. This means that whenever they wish, they can bring a government to grief and despair. These workers who are also voters know as well as anyone else that the choices they make can determine whether one side wins or the other loses.
This means that when workers become restive enough, their approval of this or that politician matters greatly.
Compounding the matter in the Bahamian case is the fact that the Bahamian labor force is compact, well organized, knows and feels its power.
Politicians who wish to be re-elected cannot ignore these people and their demands.
No politician worth his salt would ever dare express contempt or disdain for those voters who are workers.
We make this obvious point as we try to make sense of what seems increased restiveness on the part of very many public sector workers.
On occasion, their main gripe seems to concern money. At other times, workers and their representatives seem to be preoccupied with matters germane to respect.
In addition, there are times like the ones in which we live where some union leaders seem to have reached that point where – like politicians in their guise as law-makers – they would pontificate on matters germane to policy.
Here they are embarked –as it were – on a journey without maps; and here we are reminded that, history does not repeat itself.
We make this point as we reflect on some of what is today being said about how today’s political climate is seemingly reminiscent of that era in the late 1950’s when there was both call and response to the idea of a General Strike.
That great call was made by Randol F. Fawkes, Clifford Darling and Lynden O. Pindling.
Out of this great struggle has come a modern Bahamas where the rights of workers are enshrined in the law.
This we do in free and fair elections.
All else is anathema.
In the final analysis, then, law-making and policy should be left where the Constitution places them – squarely and fully in the hands of this nation’s parliamentarians.
That is why we boast so much about the longevity of parliamentary democracy in the Bahamas.
January 06, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Bluewater versus Cable & Wireless - and the Privatisation of Bahamas Telecommunications Company Limited (BTC)
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)