Add to GuySuCo’s main heavy management argument
DEAR EDITOR,
Reference is made to EB John’s letter “Keeping the Sugar Industry Operating” (January 1). I agree but we disagree on the presence of corruption and top heavy control. Mr John has taken my allegation of corruption at GuySuCo out of context. I am not claiming that all managers or employees are far from corrupt. But there is a history of corruption in GuySuCo.
John goes on to accuse corruption allegations at GuySuCo and accuse him of being “heavily in control”. I can understand how he feels about managers being accused of mismanagement and corruption. After all, he served in management for decades at a time when the industry was in decline. Who wouldn’t want to defend his management record? Didn’t Mr John come back to GuySuCo in retirement after the coalition came to power? He was in his 80s at the time. And were the pay and benefits around a million a month? And wasn’t Clive Thomas also nearing his 80s placed high in GuySuCo’s paid management structure and close to a million a month? And weren’t many directors and advisers (dozens of them) paid with benefits close to a million a month? Some lived in Georgia, Florida, Brooklyn and urban areas in Guyana, some retired from the security forces who have never set foot on a cane field or know what a cane looks like. Were they experts or experts on growing and harvesting cans? So is it unfair to conclude that GuySuCo’s expenses are heavy towards management? Workers did the back cutting. Workers made sure the land was cultivated and sugar was produced. Workers’ wages were on average $ 50K a month, five percent of what the big men were getting. Was that worth all their labor? Did they receive fair compensation compared to the big men sitting in AC offices?
I salute Mr John for his position opposing the closure of the four sugar estates. The estates cannot be measured in dollar profit. He outlined how many services provided by GuySuCo increased the cost of producing a pound of sugar. If the government absorbed these costs, then the cost of sugar production would fall to less than ten cents. We’re both on the same page on saving sugar – the cost is worth it but costs can be trimmed.
We disagree on corruption. He feels there was no corruption. It means that John did not beat the workers in the fields and lower-level management staff. He is either naive or he does not want to deal with reality. There are countless cases of pollution, not over the last five months, but after nationalization in 1976. Doesn’t John know that sugar workers have been used to build the private homes of a few managers on the East Coast? And didn’t the materials for those houses come from GuySuCo? And what about Leonora and Uitvlugt Estates – where managers abused privileges and exploits treated guest houses and halls as their personal belongings to entertain lovers outside or host private parties. Several rulers ran the sugar estates as their personal fiefdom during Burnhamism. There was one case in a rainy season where the manager held a wedding for his daughter in Leonora. The dam was muddy; he ordered workers to spread dozens of bags of manure on the dam to make it transferable for guests driving or walking to the reception building. I assume John did not know about that abuse. In another case, one manager billed the estate for digging a trench and when no trench was found after investigation, the estate again charged for the trench fill. I do not wish to speak ill of the dead. Mr Downes owned a farm in Parika. Drivers told me lots of fertilizer and equipment from the estates was sent to Parika. Also, management treated the workers worse than the white man they replaced. In fact, workers I interviewed said they preferred the colonial white man as managers. In some cases during Burnham’s time, conditions were so bad that workers felt that indentureship and slavery must have been better.
A great deal of dishonesty existed in the industry, institutionalized from top to bottom. I interview sugar workers and supervisors and board directors. They talk a lot about the ups and downs of the industry. Robbery rumors. Employees were put on the payroll but they hardly ever went onto the field. There were / are mobile phone supervisors who would call employees to find out if everything was OK, rarely visit the field site. Therefore, there has rarely been an accurate evaluation of cultivation and harvesting. Workers told me that they steal or throw fertilizer into the canal rather than the root of the cane to facilitate the completion of a task. There were cases of employees breaking their toes or hand or faking a job-related injury to collect NIS compensation.
But the biggest scams happened during the coalition – $ 19Billion (?) In loans disappeared through NICIL. It cannot be accounted for. There is hardly any capital expenditure in estates. In addition, billions in dollars of equipment and spare parts disappeared. Hundreds of tractors, hops, yams, bobcats, etc., went missing. Equipment and land were also sold or donated at underlying prices. Isn’t that corruption?
There were huge advantages in Guysuco during the coalition. NICIL made a kitchen at LBI that provided four meals a day for management – they ate morning, noon, afternoon and night. Even when four estates were closed, the kitchen remained active preparing meals for the boys. Has John forgotten about him when he went to meetings. I don’t know if CEO Sase Singh closed the kitchen.
Workers complain that John did not promote the interests of sugar workers when he was managing under Burnham. He did not oppose the tax levy on sugar profits – that was used to fund the national government. Wasn’t Mr John close to Burnham and Green? Those politicians did not care about sugar and did little to sustain the industry. Wasn’t John in control when the industry started to collapse because of heavy management – the payroll padded with hundreds of unproductive workers in offices?
Despite our difference on inflated control and elements of pollution, John gives plenty of reasons why the sugar industry must continue. I support this laudable position. Sugar can succeed if it has good management in the experienced estates. Estates need managers who care about the lives of sugar workers and the communities that surround those estates. There are only a handful of people who have experience in sugar and energy and really care about sugar workers. Managers must capitalize on their skills and experience and compassion for employees. Vishnu Panday is one of them. It will not surprise me if he has more experience in sugar than the whole table combined. Unfortunately, he has tendered his resignation. What loss of man of integrity? GuySuCo has to persuade him to stay.
As I have repeatedly written, employees deserve higher compensation. I also think that sugar workers (say 15 acres each) should be given land to grow cane and the state manages the factories for grinding. Such a policy would incentivize employees to be highly productive.
Truly,
Vishnu Bisram