Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: We are chatting with the General Secretary of NATUK.
This is Mr. Michael and he said good morning to you, Mr. Michael.
[00:00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, good morning to you.
Blessings to the listening public.
[00:00:25] Speaker B: Thank you so much. You know, one of the things that's happening on the that's in the public's domain at this time is this whole CPAP issue with CPEP workers, forestry workers and you know, let me first get your thoughts as to whether or not you see the firing of the CPEP and forestry workers as a direct attack on the working class, especially the most vulnerable in society. What are your thoughts?
[00:00:57] Speaker A: Well, we know the CPAP workers are vulnerable and most of them are single parents, single household in about a single household and therefore any disruption of their jobs, any termination of their services is what we will call in the trade union movement and economic crime.
We are seeing in the National Trade Union center that CPAP workers cannot be collateral damage.
We support any efforts to root out corruption.
But the ordinary citizen, the ordinary workers, the most vulnerable within the society must not pay the price or as we say in Trinidad, the cake for any corruption that has been conducted by the contractors. And we are saying two wrongs do not make a right. The workers are not responsible for the behavior and the conduct of the tractors. They are just employees. And therefore the right to protect the employees is a fundamental right as we see it within the trade union movement.
And we will do everything within our powers to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable. We are taking back, let me say by this pnm, rowdy led regime, former led regime who had no concerns about workers and I'm now they are in opposition.
They want to be like the prophets for the working class.
And when they were in power and they had the ability to uplift the working class, they did not do that. And one must never forget that is the rowley administration put 4% on workers table over a six year period. Take it or leave it without any meaningful discussions and without any thoughts of the implications that such a wage increase will have given the fact that workers did not receive wage increases since 2012 in some instances.
So then I am telling WCP workers that your faith is within the trade union movement. It has always been our history is clear within the Caribbean region and therefore we will continue to talk for and on behalf of the CPAP workers or any worker who we believe have been unfairly treated.
[00:03:58] Speaker B: Do you think that CPAP workers were unfairly treated? As you mentioned, the unfairly treated part. Do you think they were unfairly treated?
But why. So if they say, okay, but what did you expect when. Let me just ask you this before you, you continue. When the, when this government is stating that these contractors, right, we have contracts that was 18 months out before completion somewhere and, and then just days before, a week or two before. It's alleged that some of these contracts were extended to 2029 when there was absolutely no effort. It was already. They still had a year and something to go. So why. It's not to say that it's a two days again and then you extend it. This is 1824 months in some instances.
So what's the rush to push them to 2029 and 32 companies of the government registries simply means that there was, I wouldn't say corruption or illegal activities, but they did not meet the required continued threshold to maintain their presence on the company, the government company's registry. Now, when these contractors go home, it's unfortunate that the collateral damage will fall to the workers on the street.
So how could we say. How could.
What will make you feel that the workers on the street were unfairly treated when the persons that they work under the contractor did not meet the required specifications or obligations to government to the legal affairs system in terms of green Levy Fund taxes and all these things?
[00:05:27] Speaker A: Let me answer that.
You see, we talk about collateral damage. We are talking about human beings, we are talking about human rights.
We are talking about in most instances single parents.
We are talking about households that would be affected by a decision.
Am I responsible for, for a bad decision that has been made by a contractor?
And I am saying that the CPAP program was formed by the government and therefore the program can continue under different dispensation.
And if the contractors are corrupted, get rid of them. I have no issues. Let me make that absolutely clear.
But we cannot say and we must not say within our society, that speaks about justice, that speaks about fairness, that the workers who have no control whatsoever under the conduct and the behavior and the governance right and the ethical behavior of a contractor must be made to pay or as they say, collateral damages. Human beings, we are talking about, and one has to be careful of how we make decisions that affect workers where they have no control input into those decisions that was made by the contractors. But that is basic, fundamental, you know, justice.
And that is what we are talking about in a way. We don't talk about governance. Nominal, I know, justice, yeah, but still workers who unfortunately was made to suffer.
[00:07:21] Speaker B: But this is the thing.
[00:07:23] Speaker A: And then this is what we have said. We are taking away their ability to mind their families and do what they're supposed to do.
[00:07:31] Speaker B: So why are we not with no.
[00:07:32] Speaker A: Employment, where does that lead?
[00:07:35] Speaker B: Why are we not putting this squarely on the foot? But Mr. And he said, why are we not putting this squarely on the foot of the man of the contractor themselves who fail?
You know that you have these people under your purview that rely on this. They are contracted under you to get the job done. It's prudent on your part to ensure that you maintain this. So why are we not laying the blame squarely on these contractors doorstep?
[00:07:58] Speaker A: Hello. Hello. Come on. Am I leaning on the government?
The National Trade Union center position is clear.
Where there's corruption, we have no issues. And you are addressing that. Okay, but do you address it by sending home the workers who have no control over that whatsoever? So then I am saying that we must find another mechanism, another process outside of the contractors who are in violation of the law. And there's a price to pay for that. I am not going to argue that.
[00:08:41] Speaker B: Okay, okay.
[00:08:42] Speaker A: We have to be concerned as a citizen, as a people, as a society, that we do not allow a mistake of a contractors or contractors who you have a right to deal with to make workers suffer. We have no control over that. Workers have no say in that. They offer employment and they accept it. How are they to know what would have transpired? One, because you remember they were working under a pastry who allowed that situation to develop in the way it has developed. And then therefore all we have seen in the movement. Hey, listen, there's a way that we deal with that. And I would have liked to see the National Trade Union center when I say I that they call us in because those are workers issues. We represent our workers and we say that we must put people first.
And sending workers home cannot be interpreted in these circumstances of putting people first. Because I could tell you what is done in Singapore is after sending workers, you know, the employers, the government and the union sit down and do a proper evaluation and all. I'm simply saying two wrongs can make speaker right. The, the contractors deal with them. We have no issues because we've not supported corruption. What is wrong, it is wrong. And what is wrong must be put right. And we are totally 100% behind that. But as a society with a heart, as a society with a level of humility, we cannot allow the behavior of our contractors to disrupt the whole social fabric and social life of the workers that they employ.
[00:10:41] Speaker B: Two issues One, what would you like to see government do to put in place to absorb those terminated workers that according to the government, from the government standpoint, they will be re employed. Now remember, if this, if you responsible for 30 workers, you Mr. Anisette, you're responsible for 30. 30 workers, right? You as the contractor didn't do due diligence and as the contractor you removed so you no longer have a job. What did you think? What do you think? Now this is 32 out of 350, right? They just. So it's 300 and something contractors still there that were legitimate. According to based on what we're seeing so far in the public's domain, they haven't found anybody else as yet that they had to remove or was removed. Etc. So that is over 300 contractors.
So, so they could have. Still, what would you have liked to see government done differently?
[00:11:32] Speaker A: The government is responsible for paying the contractors. Is that a fact?
[00:11:37] Speaker B: That is a fact.
[00:11:39] Speaker A: Two, the work that the contractors were employed to do does it continues? Yes.
And then three, if those are the metrics, if those are the dynamics, therefore we can find a creative and innovative way for the job to continue. And you deal direct with the workers until you regularize. If a contractor, you're going to replace that contractor with another contractor. That is how you deal with matters in a humane way. We have to be careful in our society. If we want to build justice, if we want to talk about virtuous behavior, if we want to talk about humility, if we want to talk about putting the people first, we have to be very careful of not allowing workers to suffer the most vulnerable within the society to suffer because of the ills of the contractor that employed them. O o o the political nuances that would have resulted in such kind of behavior.
[00:12:49] Speaker B: All right, let's take this voice note quickly. Let's hear what this person had to say. Hopefully it's relating to the pub, to the conversation at hand.
[00:12:57] Speaker C: Good morning, David calling from New York. Baby.
You see this union thing, I ain't saying they are good, but I experienced something back in the 80s, right?
85, 86.
I used to work at this assembling plan in Arima, Amalgamated Industries.
[00:13:18] Speaker A: And.
[00:13:21] Speaker C: The company closed down the plant, right. They went into receivership. But prior to that, right.
The the government had passed a severance act where you can, the workers can collect money and in things like when the plan go out of business, if that arise.
But the company went around that and they come with receivership with the union all the years that there's been collecting dues and fighting for the cause of workers and all that. Didn't catch that.
So what happened to us in a nutshell is that we got nothing, absolutely nothing.
The case went to court and it just went underneath.
[00:14:08] Speaker B: All right. That doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing. I understand your point. Please ask our guest, Davy, if a CPAP job is a permanent job that they can depend on, what are your thoughts on that part?
[00:14:22] Speaker A: Hello.
[00:14:22] Speaker B: Yes. Is the CPAP job a job that is permanent?
[00:14:27] Speaker A: The CPAP job was not meant to be permanent. And if you do, the historical overview of all those jobs, it was meant to be Community enhancement program.
And the whole concept which we have articulated within the labor movement is that you must use it as a stepping stone to develop skill sets of those CPAP workers so they can sit within the society.
But what has happened, we have seen that those jobs have resulted in workers working as much as 14 years, 15 years continuously, which definitely shift from the moorings and the concept of what those jobs were supposed to. Supposed to be. And I. And we are saying within the labor movement, we need to collectively sit down and review that and ask ourselves some fundamental questions, right? Do we. Do we continue with such a system or do we develop the skills of the workers and analyze what are the gaps and then develop their. Develop their skill sets so they can be productive people within the society? And that is how you build a society.
You, you, you. You cannot build a society on make jobs which is not a make job, and then make it a permanent job which, which in effect is not a permanent job.
[00:16:09] Speaker B: Okay. With that being said, let me ask you, did you have any conversations with, let's say, the Minister of Labor, Mr. Leroy Batiste, on the workers being fired, given the pro stance on the rights of individuals? Any conversations at all?
[00:16:29] Speaker A: All right. Let me assure the public that the National Trade Union center would have sent out a letter requesting a meeting with both the Minister of Labor and the Minister of Public Utilities to address this particular issue.
We are waiting a response from the Minister from the two ministers. So I. I do not want to dwell into it. Did I have informal discussions with the Minister, Labour and other ministers? Yes, I did.
And I expressed the National Trade Union view on that particular matter, which is clear because we issued a press release on that particular issue.
[00:17:16] Speaker B: Okay. As it relates to the. To the workers, what would you like to see government put in place now to address those workers that are currently sitting down home on the breadline? What do you think government can do in the interim of the why they restructure and work out the situation with contractors.
[00:17:32] Speaker A: All right, first, we do not have in Trinidad and Tobago legislation that deals with unemployment payment, right? So then these workers will be home without receiving any form of remuneration, which has all kinds of social implications for the home.
Therefore, we are saying that the jobs that they have been terminated from the job continues and they have the institutionalized knowledge and they can go back to the job over overseeing management system until it is resolved in the context of if you're putting more contractors, if you're going to send it out for contractors to take it over.
Because the question is the job that they were hired for, it continues. I. All right, let me give you an example. I live in Valsen.
Behind by me there is a river. The river used to be clean.
In front of me there is grass. There's an open lot of land with grass going, etc.
And nobody is addressing that particular issue. And then what happens because of the fact that the river behind me, the, the water is what I want to call still water. We find ourselves with having a lot of mosquitoes and other things, which is not a healthy issue.
The question is, do we, do we leave that. That. So what are the implications for the, for the residents within that. That particular issue? And, and I want people to understand something.
When you send them a worker, you are sending a household.
And while we are saying it's 10,000, it is more than 10,000.
Because each household, when we do the metrics and you do the analysis and you do the rule of thumb, we normally multiply four in our school, it will be more, but that is the rule of thumb. So you have to multiply, you understand those 10,000 by 4 to understand what are the implications and the effect that it has within a household. Do not look at the issue as an individual worker. Look at the implications for the household and more importantly, the social reality that those workers, most of them are single parents, single single women, right, who are trying to make ends meet. And when you take away, take away their ability to earn a dollar is not. They are not only affecting them, you are affecting the children. One, and then two, you are affecting the economy because the question of purchasing powers and consumer goods dips. And I'm. Therefore your economy suffers.
[00:20:46] Speaker B: All right. Hello. Good morning, David.
[00:20:49] Speaker A: Good morning. And I Wonder a great Mr. And he said this morning, you see these red herrings about the company didn't do.
[00:20:56] Speaker D: This and the company didn't do that. That's the company's responsibility.
And it's not a criminal act. Many companies are deficient. Mr. Aniset will tell you all the many companies that they have to talk to about pain, workers, NI and all.
[00:21:10] Speaker A: Kind of different things.
[00:21:12] Speaker D: Companies are deficient. But the problem that remains, David, is.
[00:21:16] Speaker A: How do you treat those persons who are the least in the society and who find themselves on the breadline? Because when you are the least eligibility.
[00:21:26] Speaker D: And you find yourself on the bread.
[00:21:28] Speaker A: Line, what are you going to do.
[00:21:29] Speaker D: When you wake up in the morning and it's not just the household, you don't understand. He said the doubles man will sell less, the Mini Mar will sell less. How could you just callously, just cut the lifeline of these people?
So at the end of the day, I want to fully agree with Mr. And he said this morning that the workers must take their position, must be taken into consideration, consideration as a prime matter and leave the company by your side. You can cheat with those companies, you know, they can be compliant with all the things you have to be compliant with. But at the end of the day.
[00:22:04] Speaker A: Put the workers in front.
[00:22:05] Speaker B: All right, now, with that caller and yourself, you know, I have to ask with the 32 contractors that were being investigated, right. Would it be that the workers be still on the job without supervision or wasn't it suitable enough for everyone to be home while this is being sorted out? You see, the thing about it is.
[00:22:25] Speaker A: Go ahead, go ahead, come on, come on. That is being simple as taking my humble viewer.
The issue to me is whether or not two children or three children who depend on a single mother who doesn't have, which is to buy the food stuff, is that more important than supervision? Or if supervision is more important, that we cannot find a mechanism collectively to address the issue? Because works can be managed, it could have an overarching supervision level. If they sit down and they talk about the union, we can do it because that can be done.
[00:23:14] Speaker B: Okay?
[00:23:15] Speaker A: It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have the contractor there eight hours. You could have a overarching coordinating, super supervisory system that takes care of the question. But I will continue to argue that we are society where human beings must be and must be the first priority. Our children, how they eat must be the first priority.
Our, our children who have to go to school, who is not going to give them the wages to go to school. I could go into all the social ills and crap that can result when people are not working in a household, the breadwinners, when bread is taken away from them. And I am saying that that trumps anything about supervision because we could find out with a supervise them because most of the times you should understand the workers and then know the work and they supervise themselves given the nature of the work.
[00:24:23] Speaker B: All right.
Let me take one more before we depart on this interview.
[00:24:28] Speaker E: Good morning, Daisy and Mr. Aniset also, I take the position that they can just pay the workers because they have the list and they pay them directly.
And we need to find out why it was so important to give the contracts to these contractors without verifying their legal status and all that.
From information coming out last night, you get the feeling that the contractors were being favored and they were a bunch of blue eyed boys and therefore they did not have to meet the legal requirements, merely the political and family requirements.
So if that is the case, then there's corruption and the political directorate ought to have ensured that these contractors were clean and above board and had all their documents in order and they should pay the price, not the regular fool. Thank you.
[00:25:26] Speaker B: All right. Thank you very much caller.
Mr. Michael and he said, I want to thank you so much for chatting with us this morning.
Your final thoughts on to the positioning of the union as it relates to government and having this matter addressed in the quickest possible time. Your next move?
[00:25:44] Speaker A: No, no. Well, I believe that if there's a meeting of the minds that we can solve this matter even today because there are always mechanisms and processes in dealing with issues of that nature. But we have to be able to sit down and have the kind of social dialogue that is necessary for this country to grow within its potential, its creativity and innovativeness.
[00:26:17] Speaker B: Michael Anisted, President General Secretary of natuk I want to thank you very much for chatting with us here on the MORNING Rumble this morning. I imagine that in the not too distant future as we look at this developing an unfolding story, we'll be chatting again. Thank you and have yourself a safe and productive day, sir.
[00:26:32] Speaker A: All right.
Same to you on As I always say, blessings to the listening public from the Most High one.
[00:26:41] Speaker B: Amen.
Thank you very much.
[00:26:44] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
