HOW DO WAGE NEGOTIATIONS OPERATE WITH THE CPO & THE GOVERNMENT

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, Accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.0. It's time to turn our attention to the former Minister of Finance Ms. Karen Inezheira. No stranger to this platform, she has always been happy to chat with us here on the mornings on Freedom 106.5 FM. Now. Good morning, Mr. Shera. [00:00:20] Speaker B: Good morning to you, Davy. And please call me Karen. I don't know if you're seeing me. [00:00:24] Speaker A: Yes, I'm seeing you. [00:00:26] Speaker B: Oh good. Because I. There was a little bit of a problem there. [00:00:28] Speaker A: All right. You know, lots of talk happening on the wage front this morning on page seven. The CWU boss is now, you know, gangster in TSTT for want of a local term saying that 000 is not an offer. And I am not sure if that's what TSTT offered the union but they do. They are expected to have talks this morning. And she's saying come with something because that is not an offer. We're not accepting it. Let's talk a little bit about the recent debacle that took place with the CPO and the PSA. Now Ms. Phylicia Thomas initially ran out saying she had 10% in hand only to realize that it was a letter of intent to negotiate the 10%. So it wasn't 10%. Then we went back and we. In a overnight Discussion they signed 10%. The CPO or the government alluded to non cash. She said that was never discussed. It was mentioned and quickly refuted by the union. So it was never a talk where we agreed at any point we will discuss it. Can you share some insight as to how the negotiations go between the government, the Chief Personal officer and the unions? The Prime Minister said this is out of her reach. Not me. That is not me. That is the cpo. She done distance herself. Share some insight this morning for us, Ms. Karen. [00:01:57] Speaker B: Actually David, a good thing that I was asked to do this because it required me also to do some deep diving as they say. And in response to your question, which is really whether the CPO has the authority is acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance or acting of the Government. Yes, he is. And that is not a question of my understanding. It's stated in the Civil Service act. The Civil Service act in particular sections 1415 I believe and 16 in particular section 14 though the chief personal officer is the head of the Personnel department and that is under the Civil Service Act. Under the Civil Service act public servants are are also included as members of the what we would call recognized majority union which would have to do negotiations with the Chief Personnel Officer on behalf of the Minister of Finance. It says so very clearly. There's no question that section 14, for example, of the Civil Service act clearly says that in relation to wage negotiations, settlement of terms and conditions and so on, it is the Chief Officer who's acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance and he takes directions from the Minister of Finance, as it should be. Remember, the government or the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government of which he's a part, is really the paymaster. He, at the end of the day, they have to pay. They have to pay the new salaries. And so it is understandable that one would have to have the Minister of Finance involved in what the CPU can offer. So to answer the question which you have asked me more directly, it is not true to say that the Minister of Finance does not and is not directly involved in the negotiations, although it is done on behalf of the Minister of Finance and it says so. The collective agreement says so when the collective agreement is finally settled, it says very clearly in the legislation that he does so the CPO signs on behalf on behalf of the Minister of Finance. And so there's no question. Also, as I already indicated, section. I think Section 14 of the Civil Service act clearly states that once you have dealt with negotiations and payment and settlement and conditions of employment and so on, which the CPO does on behalf of the Minister of Finance, he is acting on his directives. And in fact, you know, I don't know if you recall that Felicia Thomas at one point in time got very upset about the fact that they were asked to look at this. I think some video setting on what the economic financial. Yes, because when you look at Section 14, Section 14, it gives you the rationale. Why? Because under Section 14, the CPO is required in making his. In making determination what can be offered to the recognized majority union for the Civil servants, which is a public service association, generally speaking, in any event, that is basically the union. It has to take into account the economic circumstance of the country and whether the country has the requisite revenue to pay it. It is actually stated in the legislation. I think it's section 14 2, if I'm not mistaken, of the Civil Service Act. So that is why Daryl Dindiard, who is the Chief Personal Officer, had required that the PSC look at that video setting out the conditions of the current government in terms of the ability to pay, because it's a requirement of the Act. [00:05:45] Speaker A: Thank you very much for clearing up that so that, that that solidifies the position as to why we watch the video. And I want to allude this very quickly to persons. It's like watching a video. If you have to enter a plant, let's say you're going on point, Lisa's industrial estate, planned whatever plant, lng, Atlantic lng. You have to watch the security briefing. And how do they know you watch the video? Because the questions at the end you have to answer. And in some instances, you can't skip the video. You have to go back and watch the whole video to get the answer. So they know for sure that you have to watch this video before you are granted access. So similarly, what Karen just said is that we must look at that video. The economic status of the country must be presented. But here's the question I want to ask. [00:06:27] Speaker B: You know, the thing about it is tv, and I think that's what is important. It's important to state that when persons have gone on record and said that the CPO is acting on the directives of the Minister of Finance and the government gives the impression that, oh, it's just policy directive, general policy overview. That is not true because the act says so. All right, Difficulty says. [00:06:50] Speaker A: Before you clear it, I want to ask you. No, this is Lehman's. This is the man in the taxi. You know how you and I just talk, right? We just break it down for the man in the taxi going to work. [00:06:58] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:06:59] Speaker A: The man in the car going to work right now must understand this. Let me ask you this question, because when the. The CPO and the community and the work and the union clash on a table, when they meet there, when the minister, the government sends the CPO into these talks, does he have wiggle room or she have wiggle room? Is it that when. Because remember, this is a negotiation. So you're offering me this. I say, no, I want this. And we meeting, is there a wiggle space that the CPO is given? Does he or she have any kind of say as to. All right, all right. I could probably give you a little 1% more if you're not accepting the term. We could do two, and we could cut here. Do they have that, or does this come from the minister, the ministry? [00:07:46] Speaker B: Okay, that's a very good question, because what you're doing is going to the details of the negotiations. Now, it comes like a private sector organization. I have done some negotiations on behalf of a private sector organization against a very powerful union, I might add. So when you go into that negotiation, you already have parameters, and parameters are they've already worked out what they can or cannot afford. So whatever you come to, they would already said, okay, we can have some wiggle room here. We can't have wiggle room here. If we can't have wiggle room here, we will say, listen, we have to go back to the employer and hear what he has to see. But as far as we are concerned, we do not have wiggle room. So the CPO is in the same position. He may have wiggle room in the sense that he knows what the ultimate objective is in terms of what can the revenue tolerate. We already know it's 3.8 billion which based on what the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance has said. So we know what is his global figure is. He also knows that when he's going through various issues regarding whether it is, I don't know whether it is cola, whatever it is, he will get instructions. Now if he feels that it's going to impact at the end of the day the global figure which he has in mind and he has to have that in mind because those are his instructions, then he will have to say, listen, I will have to get back to you on behalf on that matter. And when he says that, he means the Minister of Finance and that's understandable. Let me just say this so that I don't appear to be. I just want to say that as a Minister of Finance you do have revenue factors to consider. You do have to understand that there are limits to how much you can or cannot offer in terms of back balance. So that it is reasonable that his CPU cannot go in there on his own. He can't go in there and decide, okay, I'll give him 20% and that's something reasonable. Yeah. Things hard 2013 and then get a salary increase. Yes. Cost a living. He wanted to get fired. He's acting on behalf. And you know what? And you know what? He knows that he has, he has legislation that tells him he don't have no policy document that they're going to pull out. You know, they're going to show him the Civil Service act. And the Civil Service act tells him that he negotiated on behalf of whom? The principal. He's an agent and therefore he, his powers are going to be circumscribed by that. So to answer your question, I guess to the man in the street what it says is this. He definitely cannot go beyond the 10%. Whatever the 10% meets is equal to, he can't go beyond that. Now if you're going to dive into specifics, maybe he can negotiate if in fact, when he looks at the figures is really not going to make a difference. And so that's where he, he may have some negotiating leeway, but to say that he can make any decision that in any way alters the figure that the government is going to have to pay at the end of the day, he cannot do that. And it's not because he doesn't want to do that. He cannot do that because that is what he is. When a private sector organization hires a consultant to work on their behalf to negotiate with the recognized majority union for the new terms and conditions to be applied, do you think that the private sector consultant walks in there without a briefing? No, he cannot because he knows what the private sector can or cannot afford. Now, it may be that the private sector can afford more than they say they can. So that gives them a little bit of elasticity. But in terms of what they can offer, it is based on what the employer says to the employed, which is the chief residential officer. And as I said, so in the, in the Civil Service act, he just can't do what he wants. And that's the bottom line. So if the. To the man in the street, because I saw TikTok, which was quite good actually, basically, I suspect that the Prime Minister responding to that, I suspect that because they were very, very clear, the government is going to determine what the chief personal officer can or cannot offer. So for Felicia Thomas to hold him out as a chief. Was it something obstructionist? [00:11:57] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:11:57] Speaker B: And then the government to give the impression, oh, well, we just have, we just have normal policy directs. We don't tell him what to. Yes, we do. [00:12:06] Speaker A: So, so the Prime Minister, in your, in your respected opinion, your, Your respected opinion, did she misrepresent the nation or, you know, see to. I don't want to use the word liner boy, but you'd better not. Yeah, I don't want to say lie, but, you know, misguided, misguided, misguided nation into thinking that she does not. As the helm of the government, she does not have any authority as to what happens. That's the CPO's responsibility here alone. Was that misrepresenting? [00:12:35] Speaker B: Well, what will you take? Let's put it this way. When something is, as you clearly want to be careful about not being said to say that you are saying something that is not true when you're talking about that, you have to. What is the message that is taken by the reasonable person reading the newspaper on a Sunday morning? What are they going to understand? On the one hand, on the one hand, you have the head of the PSA coming out and not attacking the government. No, she's not attacking the government. She's leaving the government alone. She put in all the spotlight on the chief person, obstructionist, the chief person. She put it all on him. And what. And I know very well that I have to say this, Davy, you know, it's a good experience for me when you have been put in a spotlight and his spotlight remains on you so that it does not come on others. So what I would say the Prime Minister endorsing in a way what Felicia Thomas as the head of the PSA saying, when you add that together, the man sitting in the Makti taxi right now, he is supposed to come to the conclusion he's not the Prime Minister, you know. Nah, nah, nah. Is that man, Is that Daniel, that doctor? Yeah. He giving that is what another reasonable inference for one to conclude regarding that. Yes, that is what. [00:13:58] Speaker A: All right, let's get a call in quickly. Good morning. Respectfully, good morning. [00:14:02] Speaker C: Good morning, Ms. Nunes. Good morning, Davy. A couple things have troubled me about this. Couldn't the Prime Minister, the government said before that these negotiations are going to take some time. We're going to offer the public servants a little kakada before the Christmas because we know that they need it and the negotiations carry on after that. It would have made life simpler because they've come back to the same thing right now. And secondly, I want to say this to you. I heard a former union leader who's now a minister in a ministry say that the 10% belong to only the PSA, the PSA employees, those fall under the umbertoid of the psa. And he said that it doesn't belong to the other persons who also clack or be teachers. [00:14:47] Speaker D: And so. [00:14:47] Speaker A: And so. [00:14:48] Speaker C: Well, I'm saying to him, Wait on that. The Privy Council may have something to say about equity where that is concerned. So we are really and truly facing a tsunami of persons going to the Minister of Finance and saying like Oliver Twist. Please may I have some more and. [00:15:04] Speaker D: Listen to your comments? [00:15:05] Speaker A: All right. Before, before, before Mrs. Nunez, Shishara comment on that, I want to ask you a question. The public service personnel, does it include police officers, fire service personnel, nurses, teachers, those civil servants in the different government ministries and agencies, regional corporation workers, are these people regarded as public servants? [00:15:32] Speaker B: Right. That's a very, very good question you're asking because I can tell you you did make me do my homework and do my homework very well. So what I will say is this The Civil Service act does refer to public officers, public servants, and they do say that public service include all civil servants, including teachers, fire officers. But wait, fire officers and police service. However, however, because they are in purposes of negotiating. Now we're talking about negotiation and negotiation. You've got to include in this consideration not only Civil Service act, but you also have to bring in the Industrial Relations act because what it says, if you look at the Civil Service act, when it comes to administration and classification, perhaps it's the Minister of Public Administration when it comes to negotiations, when it comes to negotiations for settlement of new wages, et cetera, that clearly becomes the main minister of Finance. So who does he represent? He also references I'm not confusing people. It also references the Industrial Relation Act. Why? Because when the CPO negotiates with the particular recognized majority union, yes, he does so the psa. But who is the psa? The PSA for purposes now you have to see the purpose for which you are speaking about that agency, that association for the purposes of the negotiation, the settlement and so on. The PSA is made up of civil servants like any ministries who are working clerk. One CLARK two and so on. They are made up of the persons who work in statutory authority, like wasa. But even then, even then there are limitations. They are also made up of the thg. However, however, when you are dealing with negotiations, when you are dealing with who is the recognized majority union for the purposes of negotiating the new terms and conditions, that is where we find that public servants are not always, always what we consider to be public servants, meaning that if you are dealing with teachers, for example, yes, in a broad sense, they are public servants. Yes, they are. But for the purposes of negotiations, they have the Teaching Service Commission, they have the Tutor, and they have the Education Act. So they have the legislation, they have the commission and the constitution, and they have the recognized majority. And who is the recognized majority union for teachers? Although broadly speaking, broadly speaking, public servants are all civil servants. But for the purposes of negotiating the new terms and conditions of employment, that is where the difference arises. So, for example, the recognized majority union of those public servants are not the psc. They are for the teacher's tutor. So the CPO has to sit down with the tutor because the tutor has a teaching Service Commission, the tutor has the Education act, and that is what he uses to determine who he's going to negotiate. Similarly, the police the police are the Police Service Commission Act. The police also have their legislation so that when they are negotiating, negotiating the new terms and conditions, you understand, the Difference. Broadly speaking, they're all public service. Yes, they are. But for the purposes of negotiating the new terms and conditions of employment, it is the CPO who represents the Minister of Finance and it says so. He doesn't just say Minister, he says the Minister of Finance and who represents the union. But this is where PSA is for the general civil servants. The Clerk one, the Clerk two, the Clerk three, whatever. That is who they are for when it comes to the teachers. The teachers have been recognized under the Industrial Relations act by the very same Minister of Finance who determines that when we are negotiating new terms and conditions for the teachers, we do that with Tutor, which is why Tutor wants to go back to the table. Tutor is saying, we agree to 4%, and Tuesday saying, no, we agree to 4%, but it's not right that the PSA should get the 10%. So therein lies a problem, because, yes, they recognize that Tutor is not part of the PSA for the purposes of negotiating, for the purposes of settlement new to the condition. So when they sit with the cpo, they're not sitting with the CPO as psc, they're sitting as the CPO as Tutor, similarly with the fire services, similarly with the police, or all of them are public servants in the broad sense of the word. If you ask me what is a public servant, I would say they're all public servants. But when it comes to negotiations, when it comes to terms and conditions, then you have the CPO representing the Minister of Finance. Yes. [00:20:55] Speaker A: All right. [00:20:56] Speaker B: And other half, you have the recognized majority union, which is the Teachers Institute, police and so on. You understand the difference? [00:21:04] Speaker A: I got you fully. Well, let me take this call quickly, please, and respectfully. Good morning. [00:21:09] Speaker D: Yeah, always. Yeah, morning, Devi. And morning, Shera. She cited Tutor to negotiate for the teachers. And when she went to the police, she just cited the commission and so on. She can state clearly that the Police association do the same work as Tutor and negotiate for the police. The Police association. [00:21:35] Speaker A: Oh, well, I think. All right, you're just playing smart with the words, but I think Mrs. Was very clear in what you were saying, and there's a question I want to ask her, but let me get these calls. I will probably keep up here after the news. Good morning. [00:21:48] Speaker D: Morning, Davy. [00:21:49] Speaker C: And to your honorable Miss. [00:21:52] Speaker B: I am glad you cleared it up. I'm glad you cleared it up. The differences of the different workers, because you can't cross the police with a T shirt. The Nishara job is different, so they. [00:22:03] Speaker C: Have to negotiate separate. [00:22:06] Speaker B: I'm glad you explained that. To the population. [00:22:08] Speaker D: Madam Teixeira, thank you. [00:22:10] Speaker A: Thank you very much. [00:22:11] Speaker B: That is part of what my understanding is this. My understanding is this, that when the PSA included teachers and police and all of them, all of them, apparently the teachers, for example, were not happy because they said that they had specific considerations, specific qualifications, specific circumstances which required them to to be represented by a specific union. So that although they were public servants, they when they came to negotiation and. [00:22:37] Speaker A: Right. [00:22:38] Speaker B: And you see the difference. You see, that is the main difference. [00:22:41] Speaker A: We thinking alike because somebody said to tell your guests in simple terms, please tell she keep it simple. And then they went on to say thank you. She. She actually broke it down because a little bit again she confused half the listeners. Hello, Good morning. All right, call me back. Good morning. All right, call me back. No, the thing is, I wanted to make that very clear because as I said, I didn't want this conversation to end. All right, now. Oh boy. This person thinking just like me, they say, ask her for those like tutor who signed for an offer of 4%. All your sign and all. You now recognize that the other half of the public server them get 10. We had to go that the OV6. We had to come back. I want to say to them and Ms. New, Ms. Karen could clarify. [00:23:22] Speaker B: Call me Karen. It's so, so much those words, so much just like Karen. [00:23:26] Speaker A: You see, it's your fault because if when he was signing, it'd just say Karen. Nobody could have just dropped the Nunes. [00:23:33] Speaker B: And keep the T. Shira. I keep it in nunes. Nunez deserve it. That's my parents and Tishara is my husband. [00:23:39] Speaker A: Hey, listen to me very carefully, Mrs. Nunez Chisera. If it is was me and you want to keep Nunez, then your father's still responsible for you. If not, then you had to drop it and you. [00:23:47] Speaker B: All right, all right, all right. That's another discussion. [00:23:50] Speaker A: So anyway, as we continue with our conversations this morning, I wanted to say to the person. If you go in a store and you buy a television set and the person in front of you, you. The person in front went. And they get. They get 4% of the TV. The same TV. And I'm happy with the 4. And while them pay the cash. I know. And getting the TV box up, our next man walking and he talk, talk, talk. And he got 10. Were you vexed for? You are so. Wait, wait, wait. You don't get hit 10 and you give me four. No, no, no, no, no. And you coming back with your TV now. [00:24:22] Speaker B: Let me tell you, Davey and that is reality. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with politicians and politics at that level which you are dealing with them, they understand, the tutor understand that they are the public servants. They understand that they could be public, they could go and be members of the psc. That is true. But when it comes to negotiating, why are you giving 4% to us and 10% to the PSC? Now, you know and I know and I will say this is fair comment. Fair comment is that I am saying what I'm saying based on what I have read in the papers and my understanding of the politics. You know very well that a large percentage of the reason why the PSC was seen to support this government because promise kept, promise made, promise kept. And that was very important to the Prime Minister because the PSC represents within, take aside the unions and negotiate them. But the PSA represents thousands, literally thousands and thousands of workers. So it has become a difficult situation politically because you have Felicia Thomas on the one hand talking PSA talk, and then you have Tutor, which are the same members, in effect of the psa, because they're still public servants. So they're saying we are public servants. Why are you giving this preferential treatment to the PSA and not to us when we are also public servants? Also what caused that? And that's where the politics comes in. And that's when behind the doors, behind the doors that you will find the tutor and the PSA and the politicians all talking together. And at the end of the day, you may not think it is fair. You may say, well, tutor accepted that, PSA didn't accept that. But if you dig deeper, and I suspect you can dig deeper, you will find that the Tutor will say, listen to me, the reason why we accept 84% is because we believe that is all that we could have gotten. Plus two, I think I don't want to get. Let me not, Let me not confuse people. But what I would say is this. They believe that was the best they could have gotten. And when the PSA got 10%, why did she get 10%? Why is the Prime Minister so concerned about Felicia Thomas? Why is it when they presented the budget, Felicia Thomas was in front there with Minister Tancu? Because that was a very political, a very political decision. And what, what made it come apart, as far as I am concerned, is when Kwamen Booth said to the country, but wait, no, where is the line? Where's the line? When he looked at the, the, the, the documents that were prepared by the technicians in Ministry of Finance, where is the allocation for the 10%? You have made no allocation and that is the reality. So when you're faced with that and then Tanku says as a minister well you know we still negotiated SU 2% well listen, you think Felicia Thomas wants to hear that? You think Felicia Thomas want to hear that? Let me tell you whatever she got, whatever power she has and I suspect she has a lot of power, whatever power she has, she has used it and has caused the Prime Minister to come out and distance themselves and made the CPU escape, good escape goat. And I know very well about that. I know about that. I know I put in, I know about putting the limelight on you so it stays off of me. [00:27:49] Speaker A: Quick question. Can I hold you after the 8 o' clock news for a couple more con in this conversation? Beautiful. Now the the former finance minister has explained it quite well and I'm a pause raised because I really wanted to get those questions out. We will talk about that 5% because if the if Felicia had get 3 would tutor give back the one you see we look at it all could. [00:28:12] Speaker B: Never get three because Felicia said that she wanted 10%. [00:28:16] Speaker A: Well there you go. [00:28:17] Speaker B: God worship fair. Promises made, promises delivered. [00:28:21] Speaker A: Folks, we take a break. Chatting with us is the former Finance Minister Ms. Karen Inez Shishira. We're dealing with the CPO negotiations and who has power and control. One text they sending me this morning Karen Everyone under the civil service and thank you very much for staying with us after the newscast. I wouldn't keep it too long. Unions felt they needed a body to deal specifically with their needs. Tutor felt that their jobs were better than others and wanted to negotiate separately. Similarly the police, they felt that they needed specialized negotiation. The unions wanted to negotiate it separately to get better packages from other unions with some political affiliation which some signed for 2% for a three year period. Now the PSA get 10% for these two periods. They want equity all the time. They negotiated separately. Now they want equity. [00:29:15] Speaker B: Yeah, well what I would say is a bit unfair about that statement. While it is true that Tutor and the police service do negotiate separately with the cpu it is stated in the legislation. I believe for example if you look at the teachers, they have their own teachers. They have a teaching service commission that is responsible for the hiring and the disciplining of teachers. So they have that. And the public service commission also has their own commission responsible for the hiring and the disciplining of public servants. So it is not so much that they feel that they are better than it is more that they have specific needs. They are large enough Cohort, there are thousands of persons who are teachers. They perform a critical function in our society. Clearly they are the future of our nation. I don't need to quote from Eric Williams on that. But if you look at any country or one of the requirements is the people, the generation to come has to have a good education. You can't expect to become a knowledge economy. You can't expect to go forward whether you see a Vision 2020 or whatever. So the point I'm making is this. The police service, similarly they are dealing with, I mean they are dealing actually with the safety, the literal physical safety of the people of this country. So they are saying that why is the Public Service association can deal overall with public servants because of their specialized needs, which they do have. They need to be represented by their own majority union. And clearly the Industrial Relations act, which gives the registration justification and the they acknowledge that they should have their own recognized majority union. So they are clearly convinced that that is. So that's Industrial Relations Court. Also you also have the Public Service Tribunal. Clearly they are also convinced that they also need to have their specialized commission to deal with matters dealing with transfer and hiring and promotion and so on. And similarly they have the act with premises and underpins all of that. So to say that they feel that they're better than. I don't know if they feel that they're better than. They feel that. What they believe is that because they're a specialized union made up of thousands of workers and are critical to development of Trinidad and Tobago, that their union should be separately negotiating when it comes to the cpu? And I don't think we can argue too much with that. [00:31:55] Speaker A: And I agree with you 100%. I mean, I can't refute what you just said. Now my question was, and is it, does the negotiating body of Tutor, do they have a leg to stand on? Do they have a case to present as it relates to Phylicia Thomas and the PSC getting 10%, which is 6% more than they would have signed off, bearing in mind that they signed that 4% agreement with a past administration. They did not sign that 4% agreement under the current administration. There was two different governments. [00:32:31] Speaker B: Yes, but unfortunately, let me just look at it from a strictly legal point of view. So that whether it is the pnm, uncd, whatever union, whatever party is involved, the legislation does not reflect that and does not require that. What they require, that is whoever is the minister, whether it is under whichever party, but is the minister, whoever is the CPO is the person to Negotiate. So yes, the problem that the tutor and the police service will have is that they may feel a sense of, I think it's too strong a word to say betrayal, because that's very strong a word to use. But from their perspective, they believe essay would not be arguing, they would not be coming forward and saying how you get 10% and we only got 4%. What is this? You knew that we didn't know. So let me just put it this way. On the strict, strict application of the law. Yes, you are right. You did receive and you did come to your negotiation and you did settle your negotiate. And I suppose the collective agreement, which is the finally registered the collective agreement that's a requirement under the Industrial Relations Act. Not only must you have the conditions of determined and settled, but it must be registered to have effect. So I assume it has been registered so that. Yes, yes, you can say strictly speaking they have no leg to stand on. But unfortunately when you're dealing with the teachers and police and public servants, you're dealing with the persons who are political appointees in a sense so that I don't know if the door is closed, I don't know what their argument will be other than it's not fair. [00:34:14] Speaker A: All right, let's take a call. Hello. Good morning. [00:34:17] Speaker D: Yeah, good morning, baby. Very clean. Your analogy about the person going in to buy the sign for 4% and the man behind them get percent is not a good one. The fact is that the government, whichever government is the employer, employer and they give 10% to everybody. They didn't specifically see PSA. No, unions are usually circumspect to come out and support the government. So there's no leg for the government to stand on indiscriminating and trying to say teachers union after the government, the employer. The government gives a broad base 10% to all employees under the government. There's no distinction between PSA and tutor and all this kind of thing. They have a abiding 10% and then they go to the respective unions and negotiate. So I don't know why we're making this thing, this difficult thing. 10% applies to everybody and then you go to your specific union. [00:35:18] Speaker A: All right, thank you. I will allow Ms. Nunezira to respond to that. But before that I want to speak on behalf of those listening that I want to share my understanding. Mrs. Nunezere just identified, based on the constitution and the section, the different bodies representing specific public service sectors that require a special governing majority union to represent them. Police, fire services, the teaching community, these critical areas that shape the nation. One, the teachers, they shape the minds of the young ones. Two, the police responsible for security and safety of the people along in conjunction with fire services as well as. Then you have the nursing teacher, the nursing association as well. They perform critical functions for any country. What I understand as a layman on the ground is that when it comes to negotiating, the person in the police service will understand what the police go through on a day to day basis, what their job mandates, what they experience, what they need to better function in their job. Similarly with that of teachers, fire and the nurses. When it comes to the civil servants, the clerk ones, the twos, the supervisors in the ministries, the different municipal corporations, they are under a different part of the public service sector. They don't require a person who's an admin one don't require the same skill set as a police officer, a fire personnel or even a medical practitioner. It's very minimal. [00:36:52] Speaker B: That is correct. What I would say is this the fact of the matter. The rationale for making the distinction obviously would have been argued at the Registration Recognition Certification Board because that is the board under the Industrial Court, a special board that determines who shall be the recognized majority union for the negotiation. So at that forum you would have had to satisfy the Registration Recognition Certification Board of the Industrial Court that the teachers should be separately represented for negotiation purposes. We are not saying. And you said it right, Davy. We are not saying that they are not public servants. Yes, they are. Public servant. Who is a public servant? A teacher Public servant. Who is a public servant? A fire officer. A public servant. Who is a public servant. AO1 who's a public servant? The clock 1 clock 2 clock 3. But when we come to negotiations, when we come to negotiation, we go to the Civil Service act and the Civil Service Act, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 20, Section 21, Section 25. In particular, when we look at that as a whole, what it says is this. And when you are negotiating with specific cohort section of the public service, they have their own recognized majority union and it just happens to be the tutor when it comes to police, they just happen to be the police. I think it's a long association, whatever the name of it is. And similarly for the fire services. So that once you understand that when Phylicia Thomas represented the PSC for negotiations, who was she representing? She was not representing. Tutor. She was not representing. Even though they are broadly speaking public servants for the purpose of negotiations, when it comes to that, you have to have the recognized majority union. Who is that? That is where the Certification Recognition Board determines who will represent the teachers. Is it going to be the PSA or is it going to be Tutor? Where they obviously put a good argument before the board to determine that the recognized majority union for the teachers, although they are public servants for the purposes of negotiation, for the purposes of settlement, that they should be recognized by Tutor. So when the CPO has to negotiate with a recognized majority unit, who made up that decision? They didn't make that decision. That decision was made by the Certificates of recognition. I'm not putting it back to front, but in any event it is made by that board. And how is that board determined? You would have to put argument before that board that you know why. We are public servants when it comes to negotiating terms and conditions. We are specialized. We have specialized requirement. And therefore we want you to recognize us as a majority union that is recognized. And for the purposes of negotiations, when we sit down with the cpo, we are not going to sit down as a psa. We are going to sit down as tutor. And that did not come about because tutors, they were special. They obviously, they obviously were able to satisfy the Recognition, Registration and Certification Board that they will. That's under section 20 and 21, I believe, of the Industrial Relations act that they should. For purposes on negotiation, I don't know how else to say, for the purposes of negotiation, for the purpose of settlement of conditions of employment, we are not going to be represented by a psa. We are going to be represented by two. We are not going to be represented by the police. The police are not going to be represented by psa. We have our own association and we are going to sit down with CPO who represents the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the Minister of Finance, who is the minister in the government of Trinidad and Tobago to determine what your terms and conditions are. It's not about being special. It's not about being. I mean, that's not really a fair statement. Statement to me because you are making it seem as though they think they are so above everybody. No, they obviously went to the board. They obviously went to the board and the board obviously was satisfied that whatever they had to say was sufficient for them to be the recognized majority union for purpose of negotiation under the Civil Service act with the CPU and not a psa. [00:41:39] Speaker A: Well said. [00:41:40] Speaker B: I don't know how else to say it. [00:41:42] Speaker A: No, you, you, you are correct. The. The PSA was representing only a specific body. The other unions had their own majority unions. There was no equity with the PSA and other unions. And I want to make it. [00:41:55] Speaker B: I want to say this. David, go ahead. It's not just they will. Do not forget to use the word recognize. [00:42:00] Speaker A: Recognize. That's correct. [00:42:02] Speaker B: You know how you become a recognized majority union? You have to have 50% of or more of the persons who you deem to be part of the bargaining unit that you are dealing that you want to recognize. So, for instance, even under the psa, they do not represent the daily paid workers because the daily paid workers have a different and I'm sure they can put that argument to the board that their recognition should be done by their special. Any whichever is the union. But it's not the psc. Is not the psc. Okay, so when we talk about the psa, we are not talking about the PSA in relation to negotiations. We are talking about the recognized majority union whose CPO is mandated under the civil service act to negotiate terms and conditions. Who is that? When it comes to teachers, it's tutor. When it comes to fire services, it's their association. And. And the reason for that, by the way, is not that they think that they're better than although everyone can say they're better than. But my goodness gracious me, the military and the police, they are responsible security of your country. That's why they cannot strike. You know, they cannot strike because they essential services. That is why the that is why omnifier service cannot strike. That's why water cannot strike. That's why electricity commission cannot strike. That is why they cannot strike because they are performing an essential service. And essential service doesn't always mean, as I understand in any event, that you are. If we don't have the police, could you imagine the police were to strike? Could you imagine what would happen in this country any police were allowed to strike. Could you imagine what would happen in this country if the army was allowed to strike? Could you imagine what would happen in this country if Wasa was allowed to strike? Come on. And Tiantech was allowed to strike? No. So they are what you call essential services. And essential essential services go to what they call the special tribunal of the industrial relations court and it is made up of the persons who will hear their complaint and hopefully settle their negotiation without them having the right to strike. Because the right to strike when I had the right to strike. You have no water. [00:44:13] Speaker A: Even though some. [00:44:13] Speaker B: People might take the right to strike, you have no electricity. [00:44:16] Speaker A: Yeah, but some people might understand that. Some people might beg to differ and say, wasa already striking long time, but I understand where you're coming from. You understand? [00:44:24] Speaker B: But could you imagine getting even worse? [00:44:25] Speaker A: Yeah, it might get 10 times worse. You know, no water in your place for our life. Yeah, we don't want that. So the point is. The point is. And I just want to. You are. You have been. You have been. And I want persons to understand that what Ms. Karen Inyes is, has just explained is it is as clear as night and day. Now let me tell you guys, this TSTT is 51% owned by the state, 49% by the private sector. This TSTT is considered. It falls under the remit of the Ministry of Utilities. They are under the remit because they're still owned by the government. But the Public Service association does not represent TSDT workers. On page 7 today, the Communication Workers union they are about to go into negotiation for 2020 to 2022 and 2023 to 2025. And Ms. Joanne Ojier is now saying 000 is not enough for TSTT workers can. They are public servants. [00:45:28] Speaker B: And I'll tell you why. No, no listener. I am taking my position not by emotive emotions because I'm not here to give you my emotional or my bias. I am here hopefully to give you what is the law and why it is so. Why is it so? It is so because could you imagine if telecommunications had the power to strike? Do you know what they would do? I mean I'm not against unions. Do not think I'm against unions. But you have to understand the government, whoever the government is, they have a greater responsibility the people of Trinidad and Tobago. So that when you have persons who are members of a union that have the ability to bring down a government which happened on the industrial stabilization, which is another story by itself. But in any event, the point is when it has the ability to stop the police from striking, to stop the water and sewers from having water or whatever, what they do is they do make. They work to rule. Work to work to rule what they use. So in other words use every other methodology that they can use. But the objective. If you are a member of the government, if you are a member of the government, you must know what you consider to be essential services. So if you allow these central services to strike, strike means you're withholding your labor. If you're withholding your labor, what is the implication in the broader system society. So that is a. So let me. Let me be clear. When you're dealing with the psa, you're dealing with the recognized majority unions which would be tutor and police and so on. In addition when you're dealing with the unions, there are unions which are called Essential services. And included in those essential services are the police. Because you can imagine what would happen to your country if they could strike. Included in essential services what water wasa Included in essential services is tntec. In other words, anything that has the ability any union that is so big, so powerful and so impactful that they can shut down your country, you can't allow them, you are, you will allow them to have industrial agents. What should I say? Remedies. Yes, there are remedies, but the remedy cannot be that you can strike. What you can do just, just to let you understand what you can do is after you have conciliation meetings with the Ministry of Labor or the Minister of Labor dealing with. Now, if he cannot come to resolve the conciliation by sitting down there negotiating, he, the Minister of Labor will determine to be an unresolved dispute, trade dispute. And at that point it does not go to the General Industrial Court, it goes to the special tribunal of Industrial Court which is dealing with essential services. That is their function. So I would say in conclusion, if your listeners want to have some sort of understanding of it, I would say there are three things that they need to look at. The Industrial Relations act where the Minister sits before a board to determine, can you separate, can you separate the teachers? Can you separate the police from all the public servants for purpose of negotiations? Yes, you can. And then it become the recognized, recognized majority union. Then you have the essential services, which is again under Industrial Relations act where they cannot strike. They have to go to the special tribunal which deals with essential services of which your teachers, of which your WASA or which your TM Tech out of which is your civil servants, they cannot strike. That is why they have work to rule. And then you have the Civil Service act which says the CPO is acting on behalf of whom? He's acting on behalf of the Minister. He's acting on behalf of. He takes direction from the minister. Section 142 and 3, make it clear he's acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance and he takes his instructions from, from him. So for the Prime Minister to give the impression, oh, will we just deal with policy direct. No, no, no, that is not true and it's understandable. Why? Why? You know, you know, I, I tend to look, try to look at both sides. Why? Because if you are running a government and you have a revenue position, how much can you afford an expenditure? If part of your expenditure is to, is to pay the back pay or Public servants, you must have a ceiling. And if you have a ceiling, you cannot allow your CPO to run wild. Especially if you did not represent, especially if you didn't appoint him. And Dynyal was not appointed by this government. And believe you me, that probably is part of the reason there's so much tension between Dindial as the CPO and the government and the PSA president. Because Dindyal clearly does not not follow the instructions. But at the same point in time, I have to say too, he is staying quiet because under the rules under his Civil Service act, he cannot come and make any public statement regarding any matter which of a political nature that is in the Civil Service act. Which is why he has to stay quiet and look sour. He looks sour when he ever take the pictures, but he cannot say anything. So when you see he is silent, that doesn't mean he has no point of view. He has a point of view, but he has to say sign. Because the Civil Service act tells him to do that. Okay. And when you see the PSA take in the position, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now Felicia Thomas must be fighting the PSA themselves because I noticed that. What's the name? Batiste. Talking about transparency. She's talking about transparency. There's obviously some sort of friction and tension going on between EPIC and therefore it is critical. Now I'm talking like a politician here. Now it is critical that Felisa Thomas has to come and deliver what she promised. Because when she doesn't do that, not only is her credibility affected, but her tenure of office as president in a similar way, the President Prime Minister as the head of government has to in effect back Felicia. She has her back Felicia. And guess who they have to maybe bad guy, his cpo. Because guess who appointed cpo. Who appointed cpo? The President of this republic gets to the President Kangaloo. And guess what section, by the way, I have to say this. Section 122 of the Constitution. Understand this. You see, you have to connect all the dots. Connect the dots. Section 122 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago says that the members of the Public Service Commission, which include all the teachers and all of that shall be appointed after consultation. After consultation with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Now what does that mean? After consultation does not mean that she has to follow. You see, if it says any constitution on the advice of cabinet or on the advisory premise, you got to do it. Jesus got into it. That's how it happened. But you see the words after consultation. What it means is that ultimately, which is what happened the Chief justice, ultimately the President has the final say on who she will or will not appoint to the Public Service Commission. Now if you are appointing to the Public Service Commission, are you not going to appoint persons who are not going to be against your policies? You're going to appoint people who are for all your policies. And if you have any Public Service Commission persons who are appointed by a PNM President. By a PNM President, does it not follow that there will be a tension between him as CPO and the government? Because they cannot fire him. He cannot be fired. Like DPP has constitutional insularity. They clearly says in Constitution that you cannot touch the dpp. They cannot, which is why they probably going after him so much. But in any event, when it comes to the cpu, you cannot get rid of the CPU unless you show that he has done something well, his time of office has expired. He has been guilty of gross misconduct and so on. Do you know what that would do the government? Is that the order General all over again? So they cannot go after the cpu. They can't go after the cpo. Daniel clearly is like him to play. So what do you do? Make him the bad guy. And how do you make it a bad guy? Felicia Thomas has to say he's the chief personal obstructionist, not the cpo. Very cute. And then you have the Prime Minister saying, well, we are just with we don't say what's happening. It's the cpo. So put in who you're putting in the mix. You put in a CPO and that is the politician in me. That is the politics politician in me. [00:54:22] Speaker A: Thank you very much for clarity. You know, when we look, when we look at it in terms of the cpo, when the CPO is given a mandate by the administration of the UNC and we talking facts now, we can't touch here because the constitution does not allow us the permit. Even though you carry in your your philosophy is that of the pnm, we can't touch you. Your job, you're more like your tenure in your work. You're safe for the time being. Once you do your job, you're safe. The CPO still has to listen to policies and procedures put on by Minister Tanku to date. He has to listen in his refusal to what can be the ultimate result for the chief personal officer if he refuse or he carries out the mandate of the government haphazardly and personally obstruct certain things that the Prime Minister who Instructed the. Who passed instructions to the minister who sends it to the cpo if he blatantly. Because he's a pnm. I'm not saying he is a. Hypothetically speaking, you are appointed by the PNM, so you're perceived to be carrying their policies and procedures. He's now not listening to this government because he don't really care what could happen to him. [00:55:40] Speaker B: Well, what I would say is he has done what he has been required to do, which was to pay the. He said he's paying the 10%. He's paying the 10%. So that's what he said. But what he's saying is that he can't pay only 10% because the same document, the video that he wants them to look at, which is to look at the state of the economy. He has to look at his state of economy. So it's not that he directed the minister. So if I were the minister and I said pay the 10% and then I look at what the revenue position is of the government because you as a CPO would have that information. How can you. Then you try to come to a sort of a position where, okay, you are the. Give me a directive. I have to pay 10% before Christmas. Yes, I will, but I cannot pay all of it in cash because we simply do another. And if you can show me where the revenue is, because I would then be held to be irresponsible, I will then be held to misconduct, misconducting myself. And so it becomes. Listen, you know, I think one of the headlines in the papers really put it well, they said payback bacchanal. It's really payback bacchanal. No, because you see, you see, the cpo, Let me be clear about this. This is what I've tried to be clear about, the PSA and the tutor and so on, and understand why they're not only under the PSA for purpose of negotiation, but also they are also in some cases, essential services. Right? So the psa, the CPO, is represented by whom he is appointed by the Public Service Commission. Who appoints the Public Service Commission? The president. Who appoints the president? Electoral College. Who is the electoral college? The majority. Whoever on the majority of members of Parliament, which is the government, will determine who will. Therefore, Daniel was appointed in December 20, 2019. Who was then the government. The president would have been appointed by a PNM. So I am not saying that Dr. Rowley or whoever is the head of the opposition leader would then be the prime minister, said, listen, we want India no, it's not like that. But it does follow who is the president? The president is appointed by the party that won the government. You are not going to have a president who go to a counter to what you what. It's not that the president is going to be just a yes man, but my God, you don't want a president who is going to frustrate all your policies. You do not want that. So when you put the president who is Christine Kangaloo, she then is given that power. You see where they really are concerned. I have to say, and this is what your listeners have to listen to, which is the same thing with the Chief Justice. What they really have to listen to two is the president shall. So it's not whether make to shall appoint as members of the Public Service Commission 122 the persons who after consultation with the Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition. So clearly it seems to me that whoever she appointed the Public Service Commission back in 2019 was not against having CPU Dynyan. And by the way, CPU Dinian comes tremendous qualifications, tremendous quality. You cannot question his qualification to be the head of the Chief Personal Officer when you look at his background. So right now, in 2025, what do we have? We have a Chief Personal Officer that's not appointed by this government. We have a chief Personal Officer that clearly wants to do what he's supposed to do as he sees it. Right? Right. We have a Felicia Thomas, they had a PSA who's frustrated with him. Frustrated with him. Pay me the 10% and I want all the cash. And then you have a Prime Minister who's in the background who said, well listen, it's not us, you know, it's the cpu. Right. So put all. So you know what, you know what Felicia Thomas and the Prime Minister did put it all the limelight on him. He is the bad one. He is the bad one. [00:59:37] Speaker A: But you know, and Karen, it almost alludes as though the CPO working to rule. [00:59:43] Speaker B: Well, I don't know that, you know, I think what he's doing, he's doing what he considers to be right. I think that's what he's doing, you know, so that it's unfair. It is unfair. It is unfair. Let me just say that it's unfair to say what the Chief Personal Officer is doing is doing it to create unnecessary tension and dissonance between himself and, and the head of the PSA and the government. Is it unfair to say that? But at the same point in time, he's clearly not happy and he's not happy because one of the things that they require under the act, under the Civil Service act, they require them to look at video. Remember Felicia Thomas said, oh God, how many times are you going to look at that video? We saw the video already. What is that? So these stalling tactics. But he legislation says you must. And you know why? Because when we decide what we can pay you, we have to see what the government can afford. Just like a private sector, what we can pay you is what we can afford. Otherwise guess what? We might have to retrench. We might have to think you don't want us to look. Okay, so this is what we can do. So the cpo, as far as I can see, there's no reason for me to believe that he's not doing his job. However, in his doing his job, in his doing his job is clearly coming up against Phylicia Thomas because she feels threatened as opposition at psa. So I, I think, I believe. And the Prime Minister who wants to distance herself from promises made. [01:01:12] Speaker A: All right, let's take a call. Quickly, quickly. Your comments. Good morning, David. [01:01:16] Speaker D: Ms. Karen, Nothing here you touch on every aspect of the game. Now, Mrs. Karen, someone here wants to know why they still on contract government employee and for how long will they be. They've been on contract for a thousand years. [01:01:32] Speaker A: All right, thanks. I mean I don't think discussion. [01:01:35] Speaker B: Right. [01:01:35] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:01:36] Speaker B: And simply speaking, let me just say one thing thing about a contract worker is they don't get pensions. Okay. And pensions in this country are non contributory. Every other country that I have looked at, they contribute. Contribute to their pension. [01:01:49] Speaker A: Wow. [01:01:49] Speaker B: We have to look at that. Yes. Every other country, whether it is pay as you go in France, which is a collapse in the economy, whether United States, whether it's Denmark, every other country there is a provision that public servants contribute to their pension. [01:02:03] Speaker A: All right. [01:02:04] Speaker B: In this country they do not contribute. So that's one reason why we don't want you to become public servants and we want you to be on contract because on contract you go to the insurance company and take out your own private insurance. [01:02:15] Speaker A: Well said. Hello. Good morning. All right, call me back. Good morning. Quickly. Good morning. Good morning. [01:02:22] Speaker D: Ms. Karen, you haven't answered the specific question. Does the 10% applies to all public servants? [01:02:31] Speaker A: No, it does not. [01:02:32] Speaker D: This was offered by the government, which is the employer. In my opinion, it was across the board. There was no distinction as an employer who offer 10%. DCPO is authorized to start with each specific union at the 10% and the negotiation you have made a total mess of this thing, you know. [01:02:51] Speaker B: Okay, David, I'll let you answer. [01:02:53] Speaker A: All right, I thank you, Karen. I will end here as I'm out of time, you know, but I will answer, and I want to answer in front of my teacher. I want my teacher to correct me if I go in wrong. You call her, you're wrong. The mandate of the government was to negotiate 10% with the Public Services association, otherwise known as the PSA, which in part is the president, Felicia Thomas. The PSA was responsible for negotiations for a particular sector of public servants. That's it. That was not the mandate for other unions, recognized majority unions of the varied sectors of public servants, the police, the fire, the nursing, the pilots, the telecoms authority, all of them, because Carl is owned by government. So all of them have a collective bargaining unit, majority recognized, that negotiates with the P. With the CPO on behalf of those specific persons. And I'll tell you this, you're saying. [01:03:58] Speaker B: All I give you 100%. They got a gold star, David. When is the last time I got a gold star? And excellent. [01:04:06] Speaker A: Can't remember. Boy, I appreciate that, boy, coming from a teacher. Because every time Karen sits on the program, I be honest with you guys. I have to read before, before I come because I know I come in to talk to. And I also learn a lot when she leaves. So I thank you. I thank you very much for chatting with me this morning and for sharing the insight. So I think the listening public understands. I'm getting so much messages coming up now, one telling me, thank you, Karen, for explaining. I think it's thoroughly. You went through everything the caller just said to you. You explain everything on the kitchen sink. And next one says, I totally understand and agree that each union governs a separate part of the public servants. Another one says, karen, you are correct. All of us are public servants. However, we do have a recognized majority union that negotiates with us. All right, So I just want to. [01:04:55] Speaker B: Make this point when you come, and this is what I do not want you to forget. It is not a majority union. [01:05:02] Speaker A: It's a recognized majority. [01:05:04] Speaker B: And that means that whoever says that we should have tutor as a separate bargaining unit, separate from the PSC would have had to convince the registration, certification or whatever board of the industrial court that, yes, there's efficient differences, that we should be represented for purposes of negotiation by a separate recognized majority of which happens to be TUDOR and not the PSE. [01:05:29] Speaker A: Thank you for that. We leave it there. 19 before the top. Ms. Karen, have a wonderful day. And I look forward to our conversations in the not too distant future. [01:05:36] Speaker B: All right. [01:05:37] Speaker A: All right. [01:05:37] Speaker D: Take care. [01:05:38] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.