Politics and the Atlantis deal
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
As is to be expected at this advanced stage in the election cycle, every issue with potential political mileage is going to be spun for all it's worth.
Just so with the collapse of the Atlantis ownership transfer deal. Mr Christie says Mr Ingraham should have been more forthcoming about the details, Mr Ingraham says Mr Christie's poor decisions in office created the conditions that led to the deal in the first place, and Branville McCartney says both men knew the proposal was bad for Bahamians, but kept this information from the public.
And, in another clear indicator of the times, even while politicking their hearts out Messrs Christie and McCartney have both sought to give the impression they are the only straight talker; the one not using the failed deal as a political stick to beat the others with.
The PLP leader has provided us with perhaps the most amusing quote, a classic example of political doublespeak.
Berating the Prime Minister for "playing politics" as the deal collapsed, Mr Christie said: "Atlantis is the nation's single largest private employer and thousands of Bahamian jobs are at stake."
Then: "We're told he found out on Friday that the Brookfield deal was going under. Did he tell the people of the Bahamas? Did he call union leaders or meet with workers? Did he start reviewing options for moving forward? No."
Let's see if we can follow his logic. The issue is too sensitive and too important for the Prime Minister to continue with politics-as-usual. To prove this, Mr Christie tries to scare the hell out of everyone ("thousands of Bahamian jobs are at stake"), then uses his alarmist interpretation to criticise the behaviour of his political opponent.
A political jab, disguised as a warning about making political jabs. Did Mr Christie think no one would see through his crafty trick?
His version is alarmist and inflammatory, because anyone with the merest hint of business sense - and I'm sure that includes Mr Christie - knows two facts to be true.
The first is that there is nothing the government can do at this stage about the underlying factors: Kerzner's inability to pay its creditors and the decision of those creditors to call in their loans.
The DNA may well be right, the deal would not have been ideal for the Bahamas; nevertheless, it was the only one on the table. What should the government have done, allow the largest private sector employer in the country to go bankrupt? Stage a $2.3 billion bail-out?
Fact
The second, more important fact, is that contrary to Mr Christie's assertions, the failure of the Brookfield deal has in no way rewritten the future for Atlantis workers.
That's not to say everything will necessarily be fine in the long-run, only that the probability it will has not been improved or worsened by the collapse of the deal.
This is especially the case, as while the transaction was scuppered by two junior creditors, the major players were all onboard, meaning a revised proposal with relatively minor changes could see the deal resurrected soon.
So, at the end of the day, workers will be laid off if the resort performs poorly - just like in 2008 with the onset of the global financial crisis.
If Atlantis does well, people will keep their jobs. Simple as that.
Now, no one is naive enough to believe the going will be easy; the creditors will expect hefty profit margins. After all, they're in it to get their money back.
But an essential ingredient in this formula is the product, which attracts the guests in the first place, and the new owners will know an understaffed resort is the fastest route to falling standards.
So, is it merely a case of much ado about nothing? Not quite.
What all the political gauze of the last week or so has managed to do, is obscure the real lesson of this "crisis" - the extent to which the notion has become imbedded in our collective psyche that as goes Atlantis, so goes the Bahamas.
The anxiety unleashed by this turn of events exposed how inextricably intertwined our sense of national well-being has become with the fate of a single entity.
Even those violently opposed to the pink monstrosity across the bridge have been lulled over the years into the assumption of its permanence, its inevitability.
Leaving aside arguments about whether the nature of our economy would have allowed for any realistic alternative, can it be healthy for a society to pin all its hopes on a single business, the ultimate fate of which is decided beyond our shores?
Of course, this leads us into a consideration of what the Bahamas would be today if Sol Kerzner had never come here in the first place.
When 800 workers were laid off from Atlantis in 2008, there was widespread concern that it would spark a crime wave. What would the other 8,000 employees be doing right now if history had taken a different course?
What other cracks in our society have been papered over by the existence of a mega-resort which just as easily, might never have been?
* What do you think?
Email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net
January 23, 2012
tribune242
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 workers Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workers Bahamas. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders ...some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent
WHOSE INTEREST DO UNION LEADERS REPRESENT?
tribune242 editorial
LOOKING over The Tribune's Labour files a few days ago we came across an interesting statement by hotel managerial union leader Obie Ferguson, who accused Freeport's Our Lucaya Beach resort of "union busting" by planning to lay off 50 managerial staff.
"Now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he told The Tribune, "I thought that now would be the time to do what should be done. Workers' rights are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do."
Mr Ferguson made this statement in January last year at a time when in the estimation of every business person on the island - especially in Freeport -- the economy was looking even bleaker. And so we do not know how Mr Ferguson measures economic recovery. Maybe he had a glimpse of the hotel's financial statements and from that concluded that the hotel could support what he claimed "had to be done" and still keep its doors open.
At the time, Mr Ferguson was pressing Minister Dion Foulkes for permission for his union, which he said represented more than 100 of the resort's staff, to take a strike vote that would pave the way for disruptive action at the property.
Meanwhile, Nicole Martin, whose union represented the same hotel's line staff, was worried about increases she said were owed to the line staff under their industrial agreement. Earlier, the resort had announced that its Christmas season was not as good as hoped. It had told the union that since 2009 it was not in a financial position to meet those demands.
Earlier, it was acknowledged that the resort's owners, Hutchinson-Whampoa, had been subsidising the hotel's payroll. Prime Minister Ingraham had even praised the company for its supportive attitude towards the hotel and its staff during difficult financial times.
But Mr Ferguson must have had a vision. He saw things differently and thought it was time for some union muscle flexing.
When we read his statement, we could not help but think of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Although blind, and having to rely on touch alone, each had to "satisfy his mind" as to what an elephant looked like.
The first fell against the broad sturdy side of the elephant and decided it "is very like a wall." The second felt the tusk and decided it was like a "spear." And so on down the line -- the squirming trunk felt like a snake; the knee felt like a tree; the ear felt like a fan and the sixth was convinced that the swinging tail was "very like a rope".
And so the dispute began, each convinced as to what an elephant looked like and "though each was partly in the right... all were in the wrong!"
As none of them had seen the whole elephant, despite their arguing none of them knew what an elephant really looked like.
And so with these unionists, who although they never see the whole picture and do not know what obligations have to be met before salary increases can be considered, are always convinced that owners can and should meet their demands.
At present, Kerzner International is fighting to meet its financial obligations. It has a good management team that will do everything in its power to maintain staff levels and also meet its debts. Those debt obligations are extremely high. If they are not met, unless some agreement can be arrived at, the Kerzner team could lose its four-year management contract. And so, staff will have to be thankful for their jobs, and turn deaf ears to any demands that their union might tempt them to take during this difficult period. Even if they see every rooms filled to capacity every day of the year, unions nor staff can assume -- like the six blind men of Indostan -- that the hotel is making a handsome profit, and that there is any room for staff to make more.
We do not understand some of these union leaders. They complain that Freeport has no business and yet when organisations are trying to attract business, the union decides to demonstrate. For example, what possessed Freeport hotel workers to demonstrate at Grand Lucaya resort on the very day Vision Airlines and the Ministry of Tourism were hosting 80 travel agents and other tourism promoters from the United States? The visitors were invited there for a two-day familiarization trip in the hopes that they would recommend more visitors to fill the hotel. Imagine the very people who would benefit from a hotel full of guests, would decide instead to drive potential business away by demonstrations. Who can have sympathy for such short-sighted people?
And to add insult to injury their union leader had the nerve to pull another demonstration to complain that the 37 workers who scuttled an attempt to get more business for the hotel were fired.
Just where are these people coming from? From an outsider looking in, it seems that some unionists have a different agenda. Are they deliberately leading their members astray?
Who is going to sympathise with any worker who is going to undermine the efforts of people who are trying to bring more business to a resort to secure their jobs?
If workers are serious about their employment, they will think twice before being led astray by union leaders some of whom seem to have politics on their minds rather than the interest of the men and women whose best interests they claim to represent.
January 16, 2012
tribune242 editorial
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
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Vanguard Party has been revived...
Journalist and businesman revives the Vanguard Party
tribune242
THE socialist Vanguard Party has been revived under the interim leadership of journalist and businessman, Charles Fawkes.
Mr Fawkes, who will serve as the party's first secretary, is also the president of the National Consumer Association and organiser for the Commonwealth Group of Unions.
Founded in 1971 and originally known as the Vanguard Nationalist and Socialist Party, the party suspended political activities in 1995.
According to Mr Fawkes while the party's old slogan - "Dare to Struggle - Dare to Win" - will be preserved, the words "socialist and "nationalist" will be dropped.
"Henceforth, the grouping will simply be known as the Vanguard Party (VP). However, the party will remain as a party of the left, exclusively committed to the workers of the Bahamas, the wider Caribbean and the world and will participate in the ongoing debate and struggles from that perspective," said the party in a statement.
Over the next six months, it said, VP will reorganise its Central Committee, other party organs and its supporters.
In addition, the party's newspaper, "The Vanguard" will begin publication once again.
"In the coming months, the organisation's philosophy will be further explicated and disseminated to the public as the second edition of the party's book, The Struggle for Freedom in the Bahamas" will be published. Other officers of the party will also be named and elected from the reorganised general membership and supporters in the immediate future," the statement said.
It went on to emphasise that in the "new type" of party that "New Vanguard" hopes to become, the First Secretary will serve as leader.
"Additionally, it should be noted that to be a party of the people, it is not enough to say that the party represents the masses. The party must be an actual weapon of the masses, articulating their needs and demands and struggling untiringly for their interest.
"In a class divided society, no party can speak for all the classes. Those who serve the interests of the rich who profit from the present economic system must of necessity work against the interests of the poor and oppressed masses. And the neo-colonial PLP and FNM can no more serve the working-class majority in Bahamian society than could the old UBP.
"Only the Vanguard is a workers' party today, and the political awakening of the Bahamian working class will be measured by the strength and militancy of their support for the Vanguard."
When first organised in the early 1970s, the Vanguard Party grew out of the youth arm of the Progressive Liberal Party, and drew inspiration from the Black Panther Party in the United States.
Despite running candidates in elections in 1977 and 1979, the first Vanguard Party was unable to win a seat in parliament, never garnering more than 173 votes.
From 1979 to 1985, the party was led by academic and political theorist John T McCartney, now the department head and associate professor of government and law at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
February 02, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
THE socialist Vanguard Party has been revived under the interim leadership of journalist and businessman, Charles Fawkes.
Mr Fawkes, who will serve as the party's first secretary, is also the president of the National Consumer Association and organiser for the Commonwealth Group of Unions.
Founded in 1971 and originally known as the Vanguard Nationalist and Socialist Party, the party suspended political activities in 1995.
According to Mr Fawkes while the party's old slogan - "Dare to Struggle - Dare to Win" - will be preserved, the words "socialist and "nationalist" will be dropped.
"Henceforth, the grouping will simply be known as the Vanguard Party (VP). However, the party will remain as a party of the left, exclusively committed to the workers of the Bahamas, the wider Caribbean and the world and will participate in the ongoing debate and struggles from that perspective," said the party in a statement.
Over the next six months, it said, VP will reorganise its Central Committee, other party organs and its supporters.
In addition, the party's newspaper, "The Vanguard" will begin publication once again.
"In the coming months, the organisation's philosophy will be further explicated and disseminated to the public as the second edition of the party's book, The Struggle for Freedom in the Bahamas" will be published. Other officers of the party will also be named and elected from the reorganised general membership and supporters in the immediate future," the statement said.
It went on to emphasise that in the "new type" of party that "New Vanguard" hopes to become, the First Secretary will serve as leader.
"Additionally, it should be noted that to be a party of the people, it is not enough to say that the party represents the masses. The party must be an actual weapon of the masses, articulating their needs and demands and struggling untiringly for their interest.
"In a class divided society, no party can speak for all the classes. Those who serve the interests of the rich who profit from the present economic system must of necessity work against the interests of the poor and oppressed masses. And the neo-colonial PLP and FNM can no more serve the working-class majority in Bahamian society than could the old UBP.
"Only the Vanguard is a workers' party today, and the political awakening of the Bahamian working class will be measured by the strength and militancy of their support for the Vanguard."
When first organised in the early 1970s, the Vanguard Party grew out of the youth arm of the Progressive Liberal Party, and drew inspiration from the Black Panther Party in the United States.
Despite running candidates in elections in 1977 and 1979, the first Vanguard Party was unable to win a seat in parliament, never garnering more than 173 votes.
From 1979 to 1985, the party was led by academic and political theorist John T McCartney, now the department head and associate professor of government and law at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
February 02, 2011
tribune242
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)