0

Optimism rises on ‘palatable outcome’ for labour reforms

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Chamber of Commerce’s chairman yesterday expressed optimism that private sector representatives were making progress towards “a palatable conclusion” over the labour law reform controversy.

Gowon Bowe told Tribune Business that “cooler heads did prevail” among the Government and private sector when it came to discussing the latter’s fears that the proposed Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act changes would “cripple” and “bankrupt” many businesses.

The Chamber chairman said both sides had promised not to discuss any details publicly while negotiations were ongoing, but indicated that an outcome the Bahamian private sector can live with may be in reach as Parliamentary debate on the reforms halted.

Shane Gibson, minister of labour and national insurance, yesterday told the House of Assembly that negotiations over the private sector’s last-ditch efforts to mitigate what it perceives as the most damaging aspects of the reforms were likely to conclude swiftly.

He said Bahamian employers were to submit documents and recommendations to the Government by today, with the Christie administration seeking to conclude House debate on the Bills on Monday.

“They are awaiting certain things back from us,” Mr Bowe confirmed of the Government, “and we have future meetings set up. The process is proceeding.

“The cooler heads did prevail, and we have had very constructive meetings. There were effectively agreements to work together to come to common ground.”

He added: “They are asking on their end from us, and we are asking on our end from them. We’ve effectively set deadlines among us.

“Once each has met the deadlines to the other, I think there will be a palatable conclusion. As long as we’re talking, there’s progress being made.”

Mr Bowe acknowledged that the negotiations with the Government would not last “very much longer”, and added: “Both parties are being mature about it in a very strategic manner.”

Asked what he would say to reassure nervous employers, amid talk of initiating staff redundancies now to avoid the increased cost and bureaucratic burdens threatened by the Bills, Mr Bowe replied: “They should have confidence that previous outcomes with collaborative mechanisms, such as VAT, have been palatable, and hopefully that will be a predictor for what will come out of this discussion as well.”

Other private sector executives involved in the talks with the Government echoed Mr Bowe’s line that progress was being made, but also declined to go into specifics.

Robert Sands, the Bahamas Hotel and Restaurant Employers Association’s (BHREA) president, told Tribune Business: “We’re still working.

“I think the meetings we’ve been having, and continue to have, are all very productive. We’re still trading comments between the parties. I can’t say much more than that at this point in time.”

And Edison Sumner, the Chamber’s chief executive, added: “We’re still working through some details. Things are advancing. We’re pleased with what’s happening, but we’re not at the point where we can share information.”

Key among employer concerns is the 67 per cent, or two-thirds increase, in the Employment Act’s redundancy pay ‘cap’.

Line staff are currently entitled to a maximum 24 weeks or six months’ redundancy pay under the Employment Act, gaining two weeks for each year they have been employed up to the 12-year ‘cap’.

However, the Bill requires the ‘cap’ to be increased to 32 weeks (16 years) immediately upon enactment of the reforms. And, ultimately, the ‘cap’ for line staff redundancy pay is to be increased to 40 weeks some two years after the amendments are passed.

As for managerial staff, the existing 48 weeks (12 months/one year) redundancy pay maximum that they are due currently under the Employment Act is to be immediately increased to 64 weeks. Should the proposals pass, the ‘cap’ will ultimately be lifted to 80 weeks after two years.

The proposed reforms also impose bureaucratic notification requirements on Bahamian businesses, whenever they are considering redundancies, and a fine equivalent to 30 days’ extra pay for each terminated employee should these not be adhered to.

Employers will have to give relevant trade unions, or employee representatives, a “written statement” explaining the reasons for the redundancies and “facts” behind the move, along with the number and category of jobs impacted, and the timeframe over which the terminations will take place.

“Recognised” trade unions must be consulted “no later than six weeks” before the redundancies will occur in a bid to “mitigate” the impact, and determine the processes and procedures that will be used. The Minister of Labour must be given 30 days’ notice.

Meanwhile, the proposed reforms to section 51 of the Industrial Relations Act deem the terms and conditions of industrial agreements as automatically incorporated into individual workers’ contracts.

Other proposed amendments force employers to start collective bargaining talks within 45 days of receiving a trade union’s industrial agreement proposal.

Comments

The_Oracle 7 years, 1 month ago

Optimism, or blind faith? When will you realize that you have been suckered into giving lip service to every bad idea to emanate from Government? Seems the Chamber has become a mere stepping stone for those who would seek elected office and become obedient servants of the party line. How we love the trappings of office without the gonads to properly represent the business community.

0

The_Oracle 7 years, 1 month ago

“Once each has met the deadlines to the other, I think there will be a palatable conclusion. As long as we’re talking, there’s progress being made." You must be joking. I've never seen a decent outcome from "talking" to politicians. Good grief. The Government proposals look like a planning party for a winding up of the country exercise!

0

Chucky 7 years, 1 month ago

Companies used to make contributions to employees pension funds (in the real world) anyways. These funds were invested along the way, and after your working years, one had a pension that paid out from retirement until death.

Listen to these greedy animals who balk at giving a year or two worth of retirement benefits.

Ask yourselves what good is any company, and why do we in society care if the company exists, much less makes a profit ; when the employees cant earn a decent living and dont have a properly funded retirement.

Seems to me this is nothing more than modern day slavery; slavery that no longer requires employers to use real chains, now, people are paid so little they cant leave/quit. Yet once you hit retirement , they kick you off the plantation.

0

themessenger 7 years, 1 month ago

Chucky, you come across as a starving unionist. There are many private employers who participate in 50/50 pension plans with their employees most of which require the employee to be in the the plan for a certain number of years before being able to collect the employers contribution but are able to cash in their own at any time. Participation is normally voluntary not mandatory, but you know our people, never save for tomorrow when you can spend it today. But don't tar us all with the same brush and we don't all sleep under the same blanket.

0

The_Oracle 7 years, 1 month ago

No Bahamian has ever been kicked off the Plantation, The Plantation was turned over to the Natives who have Behaved worse that the Original owner with respect of the workers. True, many Bahamian business people are unscrupulous, but none so much as Government with their un funded Pension liability. But some companies do. Some owe the Treasury great sums of money. Some don't owe a dime. We need to get away from this blanket cover of everyone being crooked, mean or greedy and start calling specific names. After all, it is people who decide to screw people. Legislation without prosecution is pointless. Start at the top, work thru the civil service, eventually you will make it to the private sector, but you will find that it has cleaned itself up for the most part.

1

Chucky 7 years, 1 month ago

When business owners starve their employees , and spend more on a bottle of wine, or a dinner than their employees earn in a week, that is greed. When you starve your employees, and they can't save for retirement, just so you can increase profits that is greed. When all, or nearly all rich business owners do this, it is called systemic greed, and that's what we have here. No sense in trying to put a positive spin on it, no sense in trying to worry about the feelings of the offenders, they don't care. It is what it is.

0

themessenger 7 years, 1 month ago

There are also many small and medium sized businesses that after three years of world wide recession and another four years of PLP GREED and mismanagement are struggling to keep their doors open and make payroll every week. We also eat the same groceries as our employees. If the business goes belly up the employee loses their job, the employer goes bankrupt. You obviously never owned or ran a business.

0

Sign in to comment