RETRENCHMENT AND SERVERANCE BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL

[00:00:00] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all New Freedom Formal 6.5. Formal 6.5. [00:00:06] Speaker B: Trinidad and Tobago, good morning. Welcome to another edition of justice here on Freedom 106.5 FM. Good morning to you, Andy. [00:00:13] Speaker C: Sir, Good morning. [00:00:15] Speaker B: Good morning. Happy that you can reach with us and join us here this morning as we continue to get into the series justice here on Freedom. This morning we are seeking to discuss the first session of the 13th Republican Parliament, the Retrenchment and Severance Benefit Amendment Bill 2026. So I would let Andisa start and get right into it. What does this mean for the average citizen in Trinidad and Tobago? Andisa? [00:00:45] Speaker C: Yes, you can hear me. [00:00:46] Speaker B: Yeah, we're hearing you right when we look at this. Go ahead. [00:00:51] Speaker C: So this particular, the existing legislation is a bit updated since it was, it came into force in January. So this particular bill seeks to update the existing legislation and include additional safeguards for workers. So for instance, in the existing legislation they stated that the definition of retrenchment is too narrow and it excludes things like if there's corporate collapse. So the current amendment needs to broaden it to include insolvency, for instance, closure of a business if there's receivership, if there's a sale of a business, population, economic contraction or even foreclosure. And within that they also include instances if persons lose their job, it becomes redundant due to AI. So it kind of looks towards the future to ensure that persons who may in fact lose their job to AI in the future would possibly be safeguarded, essentially. And they also included amongst a lot of other things is that retrench workers are usually not given a priority in instances where there is rehiring. So for instance, if the business closes down and then later on it does in fact have a reboot. This particular piece of legislation said that the return to worker should be given priority when what is preferential treatment when there is a retirement. And also it includes the need for consultation before there is any laying off of these workers due to redundancy as well. So in essence, in a full time view of what this particular amendment seeks to do is it modernizes the existing act, which is a bit outdated. As I said, it came into Force in 1986 and then it seeks to add additional safeguard for workers, essentially. [00:03:04] Speaker B: Yeah, but. All right, all right, I understand what that is concerning. Now we have companies continuously closing their doors, shutting down, telling persons you're out of a job within, sometimes with immediate effect, sometimes within a few days. How does this law seek to prevent individuals from being able to do that type of thing. [00:03:26] Speaker C: Right. So in the legislation, usually the employer would have to give the employee notice before laying off. So it doesn't include a clause 12 of the bill which would amend the section exists in section 7. And let me say exactly what it intends to do to provide expressly for the payment of wages in lieu of notice where an employer is less than the prescribed minimum period of notice, thereby ensuring that workers are compensated for any shortfall in notice. So it wouldn't be that, first of all, there is a requirement that the person is given notice before they are sent home. But this legislation also said even if the employer foregoes that he would then have to pay them the wages for that period. When you have a period of that is required in lieu of the notice, that essentially provides an additional safeguard for the worker. Essentially. [00:04:24] Speaker B: But when, when the employee or employer fails to adhere to these policies, these regulations, these amendments to the bill, what action can an employee take? I mean, at the end of the day, sometimes they say boy companies tend to do what they want until you fight it in court and wherever. Wherever. So what are some of the actions that employees can take if their employer breach this act? [00:04:48] Speaker C: Yeah. So more likely the person will have to take action in court to get the the recourse that they need, whether it be the industrial to the civil court. But that doesn't mean that the person would be altogether out of any recourse. So even if the person doesn't have the finances to mount a legal action against the person, as I previously in previous episodes, the civil proceeding rules provide that the I wouldn't want to say the losing party by the person who didn't win the civil suit. So in this case it could be the employer who wouldn't have to pay the cost of the other person. So even if the person then has significant legal cost to bring the action against the employer in court, the court has the power and the discretion to grant courts to the other party to ensure that, you know, everyone can have access to the court system. [00:05:45] Speaker B: Is there, is there a time frame in which employees are to receive compensation? [00:05:52] Speaker C: Yes. So the compensation in relation to the notice. So that should be done as soon as possible. [00:06:01] Speaker B: But in most. Go ahead. [00:06:03] Speaker C: And in addition to that, I also want to say, so the main conversation that the APP provides for would be the wages in lieu of notice. So the person has be given a one month notice. They can give the wages for that one instead of giving the notice for that particular month. It's either or essentially. But the amendment also includes for consultation where all the parties, all the workers and the unions, whatever the case may be, would come together and have a discussion on what they think should happen before the persons are sent home. One of the criticisms I have with the and that could also include whether they think that the person should be given compensation etc. When they are being put but one of the criticisms I do have with the Amendment act is that it does provide for consultation to take place, but it doesn't necessarily say that the employer has to take into consideration what the agreed consensus of the consultation is. So it kind of looks as though the consultation is really just as a rubber stamp and once it takes place that's fine, but there isn't any obligation to take whatever is the agreed decision between the parties from that particular conversation. Hopefully they do, but there isn't anything in the legislation that it has to be done. [00:07:29] Speaker B: Now with that being said, what about a company that is filing for bankruptcy? We are no money, we brokes that is it. We operating at a deficit for years, we can't pay. And they decide, well listen, we consulting with you all, we are giving you all your 14 days or your whatever stipulated time frame. Buzzy tape does a wrap. How do all the persons, how does the law assist persons with at least some kind of financial compensation? Because I'm filing for bankruptcy, I'm done, right? [00:07:58] Speaker C: And the act also does include that in the definition of well, redundancy now because they replace let me transfer redundancy. So they said that it would include if there is insolvency closure or even a receipt and it intends to also amend the Insolvency Act. So instead of the workers being so they were previously third class in how they would then have to be compensated. So they would have the first competition be given priority. The workers were in third class. It now seeks to push them up to first class. So whenever they proceedings etc. They would essentially be first priority to be given whatever compensation or wages that they have to receive, essentially. [00:08:48] Speaker B: All right, so with that being said, when we look at this, the insolvency and the bankruptcy and all of that, the likelihood. Okay, before I get to that part, what happens when that company declares bankruptcy? What does that mean in layman terms? [00:09:08] Speaker C: So if a company says the bankruptcy, they're essentially saying they don't have the finances to continue operation. That possibly outweighs how much they are earning or how much profit they receive essentially. So they are trying to go to the court to officially declare that they have no money to continue operations. [00:09:32] Speaker B: So that's it. Once you declare bankruptcy as an individual with a company, can you in the in the future restart that same business or maybe another business? [00:09:45] Speaker C: You possibly can. So even if the company is declared bankrupt, I'm sitting up, they would still have some type of assets etc. So they would usually try to sell off some of their assets to pay off some of their debt and submitted artifact. And then in future they could possibly register a new business and start a new operation and possibly for something similar to what the business was already doing or even something different. [00:10:11] Speaker B: But the same business situation where they [00:10:13] Speaker C: are just trying to play for bankruptcy to avoid whatever obligations they have and then opening a new business al together for the same thing. And this movement usually these big large companies would be limited liabilities companies and whatever debt that that company doesn't really attach to the directors. So it can be that they are just essentially trying to avoid the obligation. But they would go through, they would go and they would declare their bankruptcy and then they would have essential proceedings so that they could possibly pay off whatever debt they have and whatever obligations etc. [00:10:48] Speaker B: So that's the pointer. I mean you declare bankruptcy because you want to avoid having to pay off debtors and whatever it is. Right. My thing about it is once you declare bankruptcy on XYZ Co. Ltd. Two years down the road, is there a time frame on the bill that stipulates where one cannot resume operations under that same same business name that does that business name go dormant, dead on the system? You cannot restart it? Or is it that you could restart the business five years later or four years later if your financial position changes? [00:11:29] Speaker C: Yeah, I would definitely want to look deeper into the Insolvency Act. That could possibly be. Because bankruptcy proceedings is something that we could talk about on a whole other episode. And I don't want to leave the listeners wrong. So I could possibly look into it and we could have a dedicated session on that in particular. But just generally as a matter of logic, it can be a situation where the company declares bankruptcy to avoid whatever financial debt or obligation that they may have and then essentially open the same exact business just under the name registered at another limit limited liability company as they are just seeking to avoid whatever obligations they have. I certain that there would be some type of restriction against doing anything to that. [00:12:19] Speaker B: When it comes to retrenchment, workers are protected based on this clause, right? Under what circumstances? If the bill provides any at all, where a company can say can retrench workers, is it something that they can do haphazard? Must they meet Is there a particular threshold, they must meet a particular criteria requirement before a company can say, listen, we have to retrench workers? [00:12:45] Speaker C: Well, it would be up to the company. So even in this legislation they essentially broaden the definition so include any type of avido that they may use to send or at least make these workers redundant. So one of the instances would be if the young company is closing down, if, for instance, what the workers were doing previously could now be, could now be completed by AI, it could not be completed by a machine. So there's no longer need for this particular human worker, we can now get that done cheaper and by alternative means by a machine, essentially. So there are a wide range of instances where a company could then determine that we no longer want these records, they are not redundant and we are going to send them home. So this particular seeks to ensure that all, any avenue that may occur is included in the definition of redundant. So if that does in fact happen to the person, they would still be able to get some type of recourse. So generally how the legislation would work, it would have the general course of what should occur. And in the definition section they stick to the define what certain things mean. So in this definition section they are removing the word retrenchment and switching it with redundancy. And then they are broadening the definition of what it means to be redundant to ensure that, for instance, if the company closes down and sends work at home, then they would be included in that definition. Yes. And there's a sale of the business and the new persons may no longer see the need for having these particular employees. That is also included in the definition. So that is essentially how the legislation is set up. [00:14:27] Speaker B: Is the legislation set up in such a way to protect employees from what I will term lies? Let me give you an example. So we have declared your position, this department, redundant. However, we send you home with a nice package. We follow due process, but secretly there's an external company, what we call outsourcing. So this is not a redundant process where AI or a machine or this particular service is definitely just no longer needed. It is still needed, very much relevant. But we don't want to pay you guys because it costed me cheaper to outsource it and pay them guys. They are an example, a call center. So we closed down this area here and we going across there and paying them fellas in the building across the road there. So all he was getting $10,000 a month, them taking five and getting the job done. So we paid them and say your position is redundant. We no longer need. This is no longer valid for our operations. That's basically what I understand the redundant to mean. You just, you just explain it, either AI or a machine, or it just no longer is existing to the company. But what about companies where they send home the staff in one area, but they subcontract the another set of staff to do the same job that you was doing, but they declare your position redundant? [00:15:57] Speaker C: Right. So in that instance, you're probably trying to suggest that the person was wrongfully terminated. So then the person would have the option if they believe that that is in fact the true. Obviously wellness must prove that they wouldn't have known because the position is not redundant, but rather because they wanted to hire someone else and they believe that they were wrongfully terminated. And that in itself is a civil action, separate and apart from whatever safeguards or this particular legislation seeks to give. But it would be up to show that, you know, you actually did, your position actually wasn't redundant or whatever, whatever wrong you think happened on the side of the employer. [00:16:41] Speaker B: Now, why are we going civil? I mean, why does, why doesn't the bill seek to make this a criminal act holding persons responsible? Why? I say that because when it comes to civil conversations in the courts, I mean, Andy, so you, as an, as a, as a learned attorney, you know, you know what happens and how those things go. Why hasn't the government seek to make this a criminal offense against perpetrators who carry out these things rather than have put innocent citizens in the judicial system on a civil matter where even if it's adjudicated in their favor, the losing party may or may not pay it. It could be a whole long winded process with what I call a slap on the wrist. [00:17:25] Speaker C: Yes, but I also want to make mention that we also have to understand that there's a big difference between persons hired under private contract and persons in the public sector. So more likely someone hired in the private sector, they would have their contract and in their contract would have the terms that they sign to, which would include instances where they could be terminated. And under this particular, it isn't saying that the persons can be fired at all. It is just essentially putting safeguarding place to protect them when that happens. So they say that the person would have to be given notice, and if they weren't given notice, then they would have to be paid wages in lieu of the notice. And we do recognize that the civil proceedings might be a long process, but there's a process that has to be followed because they can't Just and take at least place someone in prison. Even if the legislation states that the person could possibly face a term of imprisonment, there would also be a process that would have to be followed. And just thinking about it, what the person would actually want. Would you want the person to go to jail, as in the employer, or would you prefer compensation for not, you know, for being wrongfully terminated or not given the notice or not giving you wages in lieu of the notice? So it really and truly depends on what the person needs. So for instance, just saying, apart from this particular piece of legislation, but if someone is, was assaulted and they were battered, the person could face criminal charges for assault and battery, or you could go to the court and file a civil suit for assault and battery and receive compensation for whatever injuries that you had. So it really and truly also depends. Do you just want the person to go to jail? Do you just want the employer to go to jail? Or this person who just lost their job, who was fired and who no longer has a job to go to at the end of the month, would they prefer compensation in a civil action? Essentially, so it. You also have to take that into consideration. [00:19:26] Speaker B: The thing about it is that while the grass growing, the cow starving. But you make a good point, you know, but when, when you see, I mean, it is so unfair, it is so unfair that the provisions are. This seems to be always in, in play for the employer rather than that of to protect the employees. The employer gets away with a slap on the wrist. Okay, I had to pay this money. But I'm going to drag you through a process that's going to take probably seven, eight years, maybe a decade. Right? And by that time, so much things could happen. New government could take place, new precedents could be set while you still trampling through the grasses and through the bushes to get some kind of consensus and conclusion. That is where I have the problem in Ondisa. Why are we not able to rectify these matters in a timely manner and bring a speedy resolution to those that are grieving and under a state of stress? [00:20:23] Speaker C: Yes. So I do know that some persons sometimes complain that the time frame to get some type of justice in the justice system takes long. But there are certain mechanisms at play. For instance, we have an industrial force in Trinidad and Tobago that deals specifically with these type of matters. And we have a civil proceeding route in Trinidad and Tobago that deals with the timeframe. So it says that to be collector has to defense, you have to receive a response within 28 days. If you receive a response within 20, you could start action in the court. If the person doesn't respond or file a defense from appearance within a particular time, you could get the court judgment on your behalf, show up to defend the action. So the court says that, you know, you. I would. I don't want to say it so loosely, but essentially automatically when you receive default judgment in your favor. So there are things in place, you just want to ensure that your attorney also knows that there are things in place to properly save that whoever the person is and it isn't to say so. For instance, we have significant leaps and advances in relation to our criminal. In our justice system on the whole, not just the criminal justice system. We have the industrial court. We have industrial court judges that deal specifically with that. And sometimes even when we go before the industrial for the other party, it is another attorney, the other parties are union man who allowed to go before this court and put their case before the. Before the judges. And there's generally a long process to follow before it even goes there. They have to have some type of consultation between the union and things before it is even brought before the industrial. So there are things in place and even in this legislation, in this amendment, they seek to ensure that there's consultation. Let me just read it. Clause 10 of the bill seeks to repeal and replace section 5 to strengthen the statutory duty of consultation prior to termination on account of redundancy. And the clause defines the scope of consultation and specify matters to be discussed, which includes to regulate disclosure of information subject to confidentiality protection and establish timelines for the consultation process. The provision would also be made for consultation on what constitutes reasonable time off for work to explore alternative employment. So it recognizes that this may happen where persons are in fact sanctumed because they no longer require this particular person to do the job. But in the event that that does in fact happen. So you have to consult with the person to come up with, you know, address course of action in the circumstances. And then you have to pay the person, give the person notice so that they could possibly go and you know, seek alternative employment. But there is a set notice period. Isn't that you're just going to get a whole year notice to figure out. To figure out alternative employment effectually. [00:23:20] Speaker B: Thank you very much, Andissa. Of course, another edition of justice here this morning. We must break at this time. Andissa, I wish you all the best and have a great day. Catch you. Catch you next week as well. McQueen. Bernard is in the building. I don't know if Andissa will call you back, but we must Break for the news. All right, all right, all right. Have a good one. Take care. [00:23:37] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:23:47] Speaker B: Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. Welcome Back to Freedom 106.5 FM. We thank you guys for staying with us. We are inside the third and final hour for today on this show and attorney McQueen Bernard is in the building and we continue in with an extended version of justice. As we thank Andissa, she has court, I believe that she has to attend. Ms. Bernard, good morning, good morning, good morning and welcome. And thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate you still for making the effort of being here. Now we're going to discuss something that is very dear and close to the hearts of many in Trinidad and Tobago. Following the April 28 general election and the May 1 installation of a new government here in Trinidad and Tobago, 10,000 plus workers went home. [00:24:33] Speaker D: Yes. [00:24:34] Speaker B: And these workers comprise of URP, CPEP, forestry workers. Yes, they went home. In general, we're looking at over 30,000 just like that. We talk about the amendment to the retrenchment and severance package, the bills 2026, what was there before and whether or not government acted within the confinements of the law or did they find a loophole? [00:24:59] Speaker D: It would be my opinion that they found a loophole. And as we discussed, persons that were employed under the CPAP and Forestry and other divisions, they were necessarily employed by contractors. Right. And as we discussed, while they were paid initially by the government on a monthly basis, they were not considered employees under the CPAP or Forestry division. They were considered workers or employees under the contractors who would submit their names and so on. So it was in essence, a loophole where they didn't have to pay severance, while they did offer, I believe, one month salary to bridge the gap that they had created in terms of persons who now found themselves without a job and without security. In essence, it was while they said it was to do ongoing audit and so on, these persons are still unemployed to date. And so the contractors that would have employed them then found themselves also unemployed because they would have terminated these contracts and so on. So I do believe that the government would have found a loophole because they were not the employers of these persons while they were paying them, while they were on payroll, while they may have printed out pay sheets or time pay slips, they ultimately were employees or workers for the contractors who had the contracts to carry out these programs. [00:26:27] Speaker B: Now, I am happy that you are on this morning. We are going to get Some clarity for those of you who don't know. A few moments ago the attorney and I made contact with a former contractor that was dismissed under this administration as well. And she shared some grave insight, some truth and reality about CPAP and what it entails. CPAP workers on the streets, those the sweepers, the blind holders, they call them the laborers. And then the machine operators, the worker men, the men who holding the workers, they were not employed with cpap. They had to follow the rules, safety precautions that the company. The policies of safety that the company is requiring on the job site through communication of the contractor. So what happened is that they would have area foreman. [00:27:29] Speaker D: Yes. [00:27:30] Speaker B: And over an overseer from CPEP that will pass to see if the contractor. [00:27:35] Speaker D: Yes. [00:27:36] Speaker B: Is complying with the safety regulations that the company give them. Four said workers at the side of the road. [00:27:43] Speaker D: Yes. [00:27:43] Speaker B: But these workers at the side of the road were not employed by the government of Trinidad and Tobago at the time. [00:27:51] Speaker D: Directly. [00:27:51] Speaker B: No, they were not. [00:27:52] Speaker D: They want out. [00:27:53] Speaker B: The contractor in the area could hire and fire you. [00:27:58] Speaker D: Yes. [00:27:59] Speaker B: As they see fit. [00:28:00] Speaker D: Yes. Of course there would be influence, of course, if as the contractor would be employed, would actually be contracted by the CPAP company. And there would be influence in terms of persons to hire and fire and so on. And you know what, and so on. Of course, in a sense I am giving you this contract. I would like, you know, certain persons, allegedly, of course, however, they were not the employees or workers of the government. They were the employees and so on of the contractors. And so when the contractors contracts were terminated or not renewed, as the case may be, there's no work. So they can't keep them because their main source of contract contractual work or obligations with the CPAP company. So if the CPAP company terminated the contracts, there's no work for them to do. They can't pay them because they themselves are not being paid. [00:28:54] Speaker B: Can we say that the government sent home 10,000 or 30,000 workers between URP Forestry and CPAP? Let me look at CPAP. Let me just take one entity. Can we say that the government fired these workers? [00:29:10] Speaker D: We can't. And so I'll be technical, I'll give two answers. The government caused. So it was an issue of causation. When you terminate the company, the contracts with the contractors, knowing that they were their only sources. It wasn't as though these contractors perhaps had other contracts with other firms and companies. They were primarily contracted to do work with CPEP company. So by causing these contracts, contracts to be terminated unforeseeably, you inadvertently Affected the. [00:29:41] Speaker B: Because each contractor had about, not about. They were mandated 30 employees. [00:29:46] Speaker D: Yes. [00:29:46] Speaker B: So that's 10 per gang. [00:29:48] Speaker D: Yes. [00:29:49] Speaker B: Inclusive of a foreman. [00:29:50] Speaker D: Yes. [00:29:50] Speaker B: All right. And from my recollection, they were. The contractor would have a particular area to cover. [00:29:59] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:00] Speaker B: And maintain. [00:30:01] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:02] Speaker B: Recurring. [00:30:02] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:03] Speaker B: And with that being said, they're responsible for sending up timesheets and, and all these things. And the CPAP based company would pay the contractor their fees. [00:30:15] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:15] Speaker B: For the monthly upkeep of their machinery because they, the contractors had to have their own machines and blinds and wheelbarrows and forks and rakes, brooms, etc. They had to own those things. [00:30:26] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:26] Speaker B: CPAP payer, you buy your equipment. As a matter of fact, you had to have it before. [00:30:31] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:31] Speaker B: Can't get a contract and then you're now looking to buy because you ain't get paid yet. So you ought to have your money, your capital, purchase your stuff and then show the company that you have your equipment and you're ready to do business. [00:30:41] Speaker D: Yes. [00:30:42] Speaker B: Right. That's one. The fact that the government and we're talking retrenchment and severance, the fact that the government did not directly engage in the employment process of these persons, these 30 individuals, when the contractors got terminated, when their contracts were not renewed and it ceased to exist, did CPEP workers deserve any severance and if so, who should they have turned to for that? [00:31:13] Speaker D: But because the government were not their direct employers, it would have been the contractors. But of course, I don't know in what capacity the contractors would have hired these persons. I don't know. I doubt, of course that there were any contracts between the contractors and the employers or workers. [00:31:37] Speaker B: None. [00:31:37] Speaker D: So there would be no terms of reference to say, okay, well I signed a contract that when I came to work for you, mind you, they would be. They were not permanent employees in any regard. That's the other thing. [00:31:47] Speaker B: I want you to repeat that. [00:31:48] Speaker D: They were not permanent employees. They were workers. So they themselves may have been contract workers as well for the contractors who were contracted by cpep. [00:31:59] Speaker B: So there's a sub. Sub contract. You're looking at it. Because there was a subcontractor in the office of CPEP who have, who put out the tenders. These people bid, they get through and then they had to subcontract because he contracted by himself and clean all the place. [00:32:11] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:32:11] Speaker B: You had to pull employees. So you subcontracted these people. [00:32:15] Speaker D: Yes. [00:32:16] Speaker B: And you give them a day work. [00:32:18] Speaker D: Yes. [00:32:18] Speaker B: Or a fortnight at 10 days. [00:32:20] Speaker D: Yes. [00:32:20] Speaker B: Because it's every five and five right. You got 10 days job. Now there's no paperwork. Let me take this call. I see. I want to get in. Good morning. [00:32:31] Speaker E: Good morning. [00:32:32] Speaker B: Yes. [00:32:33] Speaker E: Doorbasser, Dizzy. I look at this as a. And it was a make work program. And yes, they did some useful work. But, you know, to give 100% full rights and everything to people who should be transitory for maybe a couple fortnights, I find that to be excessive. That's excessive on the taxpayer. We're trying to help you out because you're in a difficult situation. You should be passing through and going on your way. And here it is. You are acquiring all these benefits at our expense when we should be spending that on other people. So I do not like the argument that they have acquired a whole bunch of benefits when they should not be there long enough to acquire any benefits. I want to comment on that. Thank you. [00:33:23] Speaker D: But my question would be, what if they were. If you were in. If it was a transitionary employment, right. And you spent a period of time there, anybody would want to know, okay, if I've spent two years here, three years here, five years here, while it may have been, in the first instance intended to be transitionary, if it changed from transitionary to an extended period, I may have started off with no rights, but now we're four years down the road. Do I not deserve. If you work anyway, would you not want to know that you had a circle, a safeguard in place for the period that you spent there? We're not speaking about, if we're talking about persons that were at a place for two weeks, which it wasn't initially how it used to be, but if you have people who were employed for a year and two years, and so there was a legitimate expectation that then begat that period, the more time spent in a particular place, whether it be employ any pace of employment. If you came on as a temporary work worker for two weeks and then they kept you on for a month, and then they kept you on for a year, two weeks, you may have had no expectation for any rights, any benefits, but when it went to a year and then two years and then three years, of course there's a legitimate expectation. [00:34:35] Speaker B: Well, then. But then don't tell me about legitimate. Let's talk laws and, and let's talk legislation. If you have employed me in a contractual position that mandates, okay, this is a contract I gave for three months, all right? And nine months later, without a break in service, I have you working a year later, I didn't break your service for not even A day you were just. I just keep renewing your contract because you need it on the job. I need you to be able to get this work done. I kept renewing your contract CPEP because I worked at an establishment where I signed a three year, a three month contract on my inauguration. [00:35:15] Speaker D: Yes. [00:35:16] Speaker B: I got hired to this company and they offered me three months work. However, I worked there for almost 20 years. After nine months of continued service without a break, based on the contract I would have signed and the agreements between the union and company, we were entitled at that time. [00:35:34] Speaker D: Yes. [00:35:35] Speaker B: To be made permanent. [00:35:36] Speaker D: Yes. [00:35:36] Speaker B: The company refused and though I was employed 99, 2000 permanently didn't see me until 2027. Of course with retroactive the judgment went all the way back a few years. Well back up to 2022, 23 somewhere there. So we received that. So that was fine. But that was a company where I signed a contract and every three months I would be given a letter of extension. A letter of extension. And that went on for several years. In some instances time I get a letter it covering at three months that I don't work. And our first three months are next three months like six months are going down the road. And it was happening. So that was understood. But in a situation where CPAP workers do not sign a contract with the contractor, I check here, I say Ms. McQueen, you know, I need a little hustle this, this Fortnite give me something and you say, all right, you check your thing. Daniel, take a rest. You're getting some problem which I have seen you take a fortnight home, think about it and see if you want to come back and you're pulling somebody else, I don't know paperwork, how do I. But, but then there with your approval proved to be a good worker. So a day you're getting your work done and idea I might be a news carrier too for the group, all that. So I. Working with your three years. [00:36:45] Speaker D: Yeah, [00:36:47] Speaker C: under. [00:36:48] Speaker D: So this is a, this is. This was an area that I don't think and I agree with the caller in terms of. It was in the intention in the beginning was supposed to be transitionary. But we can't just look at what the intention is. We have to look. Look at what the factual aspect of it was. If you, if you work somewhere for three years and when I. And when I raise the issue of illegitimate expectation, the law may not cover it, but we have common law and then we have legislation. So the Industrial Relations act speaks to a person that works over 12 months consecutively whether there was A contract or not that person's person isn't especially if there was no contract is supposed to be then considered a permanent employee. A permanent worker 12 consecutive months. So if you didn't sign a contract to say that this will be renewed after every period and I work here month one, month two, month three to 12 and there's no break in my service, no break in my service. I'm supposed to be. Or you or that person is considered a permanent employee of any organization. So when. So there are technicalities because we don't know the ins and outs as you indicated whether those persons received breaks or they went home for this fortnight and they came in. What we have had heard is some persons reporting they worked consecutively for two, three, four years. [00:38:10] Speaker B: I know people have done it. Yes. [00:38:12] Speaker D: So but then we come into. When you're looking at the legislation because the law will step in to curve around to cure wrong where it seems unfair and unreasonable to a person. But when we have when we speak about a person as a worker, remember we said these are contractors. So these persons may have been subcontractors as well that were working for the contractors. But if there's issues where they would have worked over a period of time for more than 12 consecutive months, then the issue comes into play. Well, were they permanent employees of the contractor? [00:38:46] Speaker B: This is what I want to get to now. Hello. Good morning. [00:38:49] Speaker F: Good morning baby. [00:38:51] Speaker B: Quickly. Good morning. [00:38:52] Speaker F: And your guest. [00:38:53] Speaker D: Good morning. [00:38:54] Speaker F: How I understand it and URP workers. URP is unemployment relief program. And you see that is a make work program to help our people. So if they were employed for who whole year that was unlawful. Because when you have a gang of 10 members after three months best 10 goes and another 10 comes in and so it goes and next 10 coming. So you have more people that will help other released in the program. Not one person working a whole year. That I think was unlawful. [00:39:31] Speaker B: All right, that's one aspect. And then yeah, because if if it is I keep you Izzy contractor and I keep you every fortnight. You own. You are saying 12 months straight. Yeah, I work in with you. [00:39:47] Speaker D: That's the law. [00:39:48] Speaker B: I so you permanently employed with me. Now I can't terminate your contract after that. I had to make it permanent. [00:39:52] Speaker D: Just like that. Just like the the issue that you raised with your particular circumstance where you were brought initially for three months. After working a year, even if they were giving you letters, you then have a legit legitimate expectation well okay, after this three month period I've worked and work now it's A year. It's two years. And what was your expectation? That obviously that you would be made permanent. [00:40:14] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:40:15] Speaker D: And the law says that once you work continuously for 12 months and you you did not receive a break ins in your service, you are considered an permanent employee. Whether there is even if you will be signing contract annually, you will work. You have an expectation that this contract would be renewed and so on and so forth. And you are entitled to certain benefits at the end of that employment. [00:40:38] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:40:39] Speaker G: Hello. And good morning Devi. [00:40:40] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:40:41] Speaker G: So I will say there's not about 30 contractors and then again I will say the workers and I'm already moved on and they're all working for double salary right now. [00:40:51] Speaker C: So I just. [00:40:52] Speaker G: This wouldn't go anywhere. It's a lost cause because it wouldn't have any written. Just like when long time you apply for your URP work, you would have signed something or to apply, you know, in writing. You know, you have that history there. There is no history for cta. We all know that. We live here and in the books. If you were to go on and ventilated before the judge, judge has that tie because that there's nothing there. So I'm saying the workers already move on. So that have no way to go. Have a good day. [00:41:23] Speaker D: And I disagree. I disagree that all of the workers, if you're talking about, and I did hear that there would have been okay when the numbers came in, 10,500 persons. It may not exactly be that and so on. They talked about goose gang or whatever. But at the end of the day a significant amount of persons were employed here. Of course, people, some will move on, some will get jobs. But I have personal clients that I speak speak to that have not moved on, that have not been able to get a replacement job. Not for the lack of trying. And their bills come like every month at clockwork. [00:41:55] Speaker B: Are they dying? Are they dying? [00:41:57] Speaker D: They're not dead. [00:41:58] Speaker B: So they're alive. [00:41:59] Speaker D: They're alive. [00:42:00] Speaker B: So how long now is a year now and they're eating. So I had a discussion with a neighbor last night, last evening on the same issue. Now, I'm not for lack of emotional empathy on these individuals, but we must understand the remits in which you were hired. All right. Somebody is now asking Davey, was CPAP contractors paying nis? No, they was not paying nis. NIS was being paid by the CPEP company itself. [00:42:24] Speaker D: On their behalf. [00:42:24] Speaker B: On their behalf. So CPEP workers, NIS was paid for them. Yes, I can testify to that. I have seen it. It Was paid for them. All right. So their contributions was made. They can go and verify. They can find out about it. Because at 1050 going home at $980 a fortnight you would see NIS and health surcharge being deducted. So the CPAP based company was paying it, not the contractor. [00:42:58] Speaker D: Yes. [00:42:58] Speaker B: Hello. Good morning. Good morning. [00:43:02] Speaker H: Good morning Davy and their guest. [00:43:04] Speaker D: Good morning. [00:43:05] Speaker C: But yes. [00:43:05] Speaker H: What happened? One of the ministers of social development they said that there was someone who name was on the list for cpap but she was working in Jamaica at the time. And there were so many names on that list that they were not around. They were just makeup like ghost list. So all they take into consideration that what the program was about. It was very dishonest. [00:43:31] Speaker B: Very. [00:43:32] Speaker H: In that time. [00:43:33] Speaker D: Yes. [00:43:33] Speaker B: All right. [00:43:34] Speaker H: That is what caused it. Thank you very much. [00:43:36] Speaker B: Now here's a twist. Here's a. Here's a thing. If it is the CPEP contractor. I want all you to think about this. Including you, Ms. McQueen. Bernard. I make up. I have 30 persons working for me on a list. But out of that 30 persons at least seven people, eight. His name's there. But they're not on the. They're not on the job site. I. I gained them. They were getting done. But I'm sending in my 38 of them or 10 of them. Out of that 30 is miss is not actively there. And who gained the money? You ever thought about that? The ghost. The ghost where the money going? Because remember, the contractor is not given the packet to pay the employees. I just given all this because I know the answer now I just want to see if anybody thinking outside the box. I want to get your critical thinking skills out. So I am a contract. The contractor receives their contractual money for the job. The ghosts, the people that names there where that money going. Who getting paid. How is the money being withdrawn from the banks? Because most people, not most all CPAP workers had to have a bank account. [00:44:56] Speaker D: Yes. [00:44:57] Speaker B: In most instances they will tell you if you have a first citizen bank account your money faster. Because the other banks based on when they have to send the ph she turn and send. It takes a little more time because it's not their bank. So they have to send the money and the bank have to send it to the other banks. And then you will get paid maybe a day or two after. [00:45:17] Speaker D: Right. [00:45:17] Speaker B: That was fucked up. Right? Where the money going? Who getting paid? I just want to see if all you're thinking critically out here. And this is a question for you after the commercial break. What Is the redress then if someone who has worked for over 12 months without a break in service, not just CPEP but other industries and they weren't considered permanent and can a company be forced to pay NIS contributions? That's a question for you coming back right after this break. [00:45:46] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:45:54] Speaker B: Welcome back. Good morning Trinidad and Tobago. The lines are well lit. So let's get to that question. What redress can someone who worked over 12 months without a break in service, not just for CPEP but other industries and they weren't considered permanent. [00:46:09] Speaker D: Right. So unfortunately there would always be difference of opinions. You would have a person that said well I work continuously for 12 months, you never broke my service, you know, so on. And the employee might seem to terminate and not want to pay severance. Then there's the industrial court. First that it starts with the Ministry of Labor. The Minister of Labor is the overseer of all industrial matters. That starts there. So you can, if you were you, you didn't have a union because most persons don't have a union unless it's a recognized majority union. You can then upon termination go to your union and how you must be with that union for 90 days and they have a certain period of time in which to bring a matter. You pay your dues at that point. It is always recommended of course to have a union, individual union once you're employed, but once you were terminated and you worked for a continuous period period under the industrial relations access 12 consecutive months, you without a break in service, you are considered a permanent employee, at least entitled to severance benefits. You are considered a worker. [00:47:15] Speaker B: So you're not entitled to a paid vacation sick leave after 12 months. Yes, yeah, but, but, but, but what if they don't want to give you that? [00:47:24] Speaker D: But then that is what the industrial court is for. [00:47:26] Speaker B: But then you go to the industrial court and the, the cow, the cow starving while grass growing scenario comes in. Because when I go to the industrial court, I piss off. Mr. Bernard? [00:47:36] Speaker D: Yes. [00:47:37] Speaker B: Oh, so that what you're doing? Well, we no longer require services and we fire you take me to court and you spend years and then you have nothing. So you're forced between a rock and a hard place you need to live in. You need. Life is lifing. It ain't gonna pause. What do, what do we do? It's as though these companies can get, can get away with it. And then the same additional to that question during the 12 months, no NIS was paid. What could be done? [00:48:03] Speaker D: Well then, so those are. All of those things can be will have to be raised. And I understand your position. I understand persons speak truth sometimes to just move on, get another job and live their life. They look at it at it's a year, I'll make that back, you know, I'll get another job. But it is important to hold of based on principle to hold these employers accountable for when they have these shortfall and when they do the wrong things. Unless you do that and ensure that your rights are preserved, they would do it to another person as well. [00:48:35] Speaker B: I have a question for you. Good morning. [00:48:38] Speaker G: Morning. [00:48:39] Speaker B: Make your point quickly, please. Yeah. [00:48:42] Speaker I: One must remember that the CPAP contract and the URP was a program for employment through a contractor by the government. Now, when the contractor employs, Let me say, 30 people within Taika too, these are listed as, you know, employment through the contractor for the government. So the government will say, okay, we employ 60,000 people in one year. The idea about it, Davey, you will want to know how come a contractor have 30 workers, but have 30 account and have a lot of them permanent. For instance, if I'm a contractor and I have five brothers, the. The thing about it, David, we are paying NIS contribution for them permanently. They don't want to come and work because we get any work done with 10 people. But when I paid the 30 people who I considered that I want them to get the NI benefit for funeral services or anything, that is how people thank you. [00:49:37] Speaker C: Okay. [00:49:37] Speaker B: I kind of break up a lot there. Make me lose my trend of thought when we were discussing about the. The nis. [00:49:44] Speaker D: Yes. [00:49:45] Speaker B: All right. What about companies? Is there such thing as a permanent contracted worker? You're permanently contracted as a worker, meaning that you're employed and you're signing a contract every six months. Every six months you're signed. Some instances every three or every year. But they pay you what you work for. [00:50:06] Speaker D: Yes. [00:50:06] Speaker B: It's like I come and I cut your bush. And I liken to this. I am a landscaper. I am contracted by you and your husband on a monthly basis to maintain your grounds, your yard. So every time I pass, I realize, okay, every two weeks I had to come and cut the bush, trim the hedges. I come and I do that and then I write up my receipt and I my bill, my invoice and I send it to you. You pay me. You don't pay me, you don't pay an isme. But I'm doing this for you for two years now, going no, because you [00:50:33] Speaker D: would be considered as a contractor working for yourself. So I am paying you for a service. You're not an employee, you are not under my employee, meaning I am not responsible for you during the hours of 8 and 4. There are certain criteria that determines what a person is, what makes a worker or employee. That person would be considered, considered a contractor. A person that I hire for services, he sets his own hours, he sets his own time, he makes his own rules, he does his own thing. I pay him for the service that he provides. [00:51:06] Speaker B: But what if you have a mandated scheduled time that you want that person to be there, but they are still, they're still a contractor. So you mentioned I contracted an AC man, I come in and fix your AC, but I contract you and I want you every three months these ACs have to be serviced, you are going to be paid for it. So you come in every three months, you service my ac. Every two months, you're coming to my restaurant, you have to service my machillas, make sure they're up to mark every three months. So every two months is machellas, every three months is the ac and you're on rotation. When you're done every month you send me an invoice, I get the invoice, I sign off on it, make sure the work was done, pay you, move on. [00:51:44] Speaker D: The fact that you have to send an invoice shows that there's a differentiation from a person, person who would be considered an employee or worker to a person that is self employed and providing a service. So it's a contracted person. An employee is somebody who is under the control of an employer in terms of a day to day, Monday to Friday, however that person works. So apart from when you're coming to my home, I may set a time, yes, but I don't know what you do when you're not here. That is not my business and that is not my concern. So that will tell you that the relationship there is not one of an employee, employer relationship. [00:52:18] Speaker B: But if I need you in my establishment every day, Monday to Friday, I need you at my establishment. But you, I am paying you for your service. Just send me an invoice when you finish the job and I pay you, but you're consistent because I like your work, you're doing good, you're working. How is that considered? [00:52:37] Speaker D: I do not control your how you go about doing your business. You provide a service to me and I pay you for that service by the provision of an invoice that shows a relationship where it's contractor con contracted work as opposed to an employee where I give a terms of engagement. This is what you do when you come to work from 8 to 4. This is what you do on Mondays. This is what you do when you go and you take the company vehicle. I need you to do these things and so on and so forth. [00:53:06] Speaker B: Once you send. Once you send. You're submitting an invoice on a monthly basis? [00:53:11] Speaker D: Yes. [00:53:11] Speaker B: To. To someone. All right, understood. So we're getting somewhere here and I liken where it's going. Hello. Good morning. Quickly, quickly. [00:53:22] Speaker F: If you are paying maintenance and the child which 18 years and processing your application to continue because the child doing special education how long again you have to continue paying maintenance? [00:53:32] Speaker B: All right. You know at his hate it when you all digress from where we trying to stay on topic, but it's a very good question. I am not going to, you know, negate the fact that you want to know, but yes, I would quickly answer the question. Go ahead. [00:53:46] Speaker D: If a child is in tertiary education and their past 18 years and an application was made, the order of the court usually considers until a child completes first tertiary education. Until that child usually until first tertiary education. So they would be required to pay maintenance of the child until the child finish first full time tertiary education. [00:54:09] Speaker B: I was going to tell him the same thing, but I like it when the attorneys talk. You know, I love it because it comes from the attorney. So I hope you answered your questions in a nutshell. Once the child continues tertiary education, you're required to pay both parents. [00:54:21] Speaker D: Yes. [00:54:21] Speaker B: And just to digress. Oh gosh. You see how to pay attention to what's going on here. You know the conversations. Sweet. Too bad. Just to remind you guys about the maintenance thing, remember? And this for women to her you're going to court. I learned this between Andisa and McQueen burn. And we talk about this. So don't feel it running up in court. Yeah, judge, I need $4,000 a month to raise this channel. You just gonna say okay, father to pay 4,000. Oh, it's 4,000 to raise the child. Well, where's your two yes. That's why woman. [00:54:49] Speaker D: Yes. [00:54:50] Speaker B: Trinity are pelting big stone for woman this morning. Well, you like to run up in court and put man up for maintenance, no problem. But if you're saying it costs in first of all you had to prove 4,000. [00:55:00] Speaker D: Yes. [00:55:00] Speaker B: You gotta show how. You gotta show that yes proper not what you conjure up. Because don't get twisted. The courts already know what it takes [00:55:09] Speaker D: to maintain on A basic level, not [00:55:13] Speaker B: your outside of the box wanting the betterment from it. You see, the basic level, the courts already know. How much for Enfamil, how much for Pampers, how much our baby bottle this costs, how much daycare. There's a range between this time and this. This price. And they already know. So you can't come with something outrageous until the court days where it costs in you. Because my child had to go to this particular daycare who just fluff and groom my child and put them on a cloud when they come and feed them cotton candy, then find a dick from daycare or you pay the excess. So at this line, you know, it's a maintenance order and it is split in half. So when the court say, okay, it costing $3,000 a month to raise this child. Dad, you 15, mom, you 15. Talk done. [00:55:59] Speaker D: Unless dad want to offer a little more. [00:56:01] Speaker B: No, no, as a father, I offer none. Me and my children could talk when they get big. Just saying. And then another thing too. If all you have shared custody, right, and the shared custody is two weeks, me, two weeks, you. It's not no maintenance to pay by nobody. [00:56:14] Speaker D: No. Except for like the external things, right, like the books. Yes. [00:56:19] Speaker B: School books, maybe a medical bill, doctor, dentist, that kind of thing. But if it's two weeks by you and two weeks by me, when it by you, you gotta feed it. When it by me, I responsible. I just say nobody. I just put it out there because I just talked to Andy and we just talk all these things. All right, so let me get back on course with the severance. So let's talk severance. Yes, you're permanently. No, forget the permanent, you're employed. And we have companies in Trinidad and Tobago that has done this. Send people home. Yeah, let's talk about that quickly. [00:56:54] Speaker D: One such company if. If we run because we know we are a country that moves on quickly. 90 days, Assam at closed down, closed its doors and sent home 600 and over. 650, I think 649 employees, workers. And they never. To date, they never receive severance. And what irks me is this same company was operating in another jurisdiction. I believe Colombia could be corrected Latin America. And they did pay severance for these. With these employees. [00:57:25] Speaker B: But in Trinidad they didn't. [00:57:26] Speaker D: They did not. And what was the. Because they went to. They became insolvent. They said they were operating at a loss. They were not. They were not required. There were negotiations. But to date, these employees had to move on, get jobs, figure out their lives that came crumbling down one morning and they never received severance despite working there. Some of them worked there for over 10 years. [00:57:50] Speaker B: So what sort of redress can they take? I mean, and for future reference with persons in similar situations. [00:57:55] Speaker D: So one of the things that the act, the bill is attempting to remedy, I'm sure they would have utilized Asim at al as one of the studies is to as Andisa would have mentioned earlier, to put the workers at the front line because Asim Atal said that they had. They were owing this person and this person. And so of course, employees became last on the list of persons that work be paid. The bill is attempting to put the employees at the front, but that still leaves a shortfall where you're saying, okay, well, if I don't have any money at all, nobody could get paid the workers nor my creditors, you understand. So there are things that this act is seeking to remedy. And I did look at the Hansard in terms of the debate. It was really, really well debated, especially in certain essays and so on. What they are trying to do is ensure that one that there is some sort of especially international companies which they are supposed to be upholding bonds or money set aside for such an instance where they have to shut down and workers are being paid. One of the other things that I also looked at in the debate of the bill was whether it could be done retroactively because Asim Atal did leave a bit. I wasn't even an attorney then. When that happened, I. And that always left her like a billy. You could get up one morning and it has happened. But that was. That stayed at the forefront of my mind because it was all over the newspapers. You woke up one morning and was unemployed. The act, one of the things that was debated is whether there could be a retroactive something. So whether the government could go back in time and say, well, these persons could now. But of course, Asimatl is no longer in the country. They've packed up, left and gone and moved on with their lives. And that is still being debated. But I do know that they are considering for a period retroactive. So if it's something that happened, I think I saw one of the senators as to whether it could have gone back to May 2025 and that was not agreed to. But those things, this bill is seeking to address some of those concerns whereby employers are required to put aside funds to deal with these type of issues, use and if they terminate persons and then also include. Because AS got away through a loophole. [01:00:13] Speaker B: Yeah, right. [01:00:14] Speaker D: They were not required to pay Severance because. Well, we wound up, you know, it's not to say we made redundant persons redundant or we were down sizing. We wound up. [01:00:22] Speaker B: That was it. [01:00:23] Speaker D: That was not covered under the old legislation. Well, the current. It hasn't been changed as yet. So the amendment is seeking to redress that. [01:00:31] Speaker B: Yeah. Don't feel like it wound up. The business and co call that a day. Yes, because on this and I spoke in the last hour about bankruptcy and solvency and last coming to the forefront takes precedence or your owe your creditors and your debtors. Yes. But your workers are now frontline. They're now first. [01:00:45] Speaker D: Yes. [01:00:45] Speaker B: Because they. They are the ones directly affected. Because your creditors and debtors, they're still working, you know. [01:00:50] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:00:50] Speaker B: And maybe that's the way in which they look at it. There's still corporations, they still. I mean, yes, you're owing their money, they want their money because they provide a service to you already, but they're still functioning. But these people are heading for immediate hunger. [01:01:04] Speaker D: Yes. [01:01:04] Speaker B: Breadline business. So we want you to get them sorted out and if we are able, Ms. Bernard to hold. Is it Sadie Shadi. If you're able to hold one person, one company to ransom and make them an example, I think that will line everybody else up in the. In their orders to ensure that you see that judgment. And the thing about it is, when I ask you about criminal. I think if it was you or Andisa I spoke to, perhaps Andy. Sir, it's a civil matter. [01:01:35] Speaker D: Yes. [01:01:35] Speaker B: But could this bill. Could it be that the Senior Councils and the King's Councils could look at it in such a manner where. Let's make this criminal. [01:01:43] Speaker D: Yes. And I'm not sure if my colleague Andisa spoke about it, but what I noted as well is currently under the current legislation, penalties for on not observing on non compliance with a company for not doing the right thing in terms of either paying or having the discussions and so on. 10,000. This bill is seeking to increase it to 100,000. I think it should be, especially if it's a foreign company, any company, but especially foreign coming to setup shop. It should be that figure being paid or posted as a bond. So there is something that the government could reach in or the Minister of Labor who is responsible, of course, can reach in and say, well, we held this 100,000. You have not complied. We are taking this money and at least seeing where what it can be done. And of course, if it's a large scale, you understand, when increase, I. I would think it's going to be in the millions. [01:02:35] Speaker B: I love that. And that's a good, good suggestion. [01:02:38] Speaker D: Yes. [01:02:38] Speaker B: You know, you come in. Oh, so Davy Shade and Andissa wants to open a company here. Listen, what is your trajectory in terms of your employees that you're looking because you had to run the business? We say, okay, we're looking to employ about 100 persons. We need, based on our, what we setting up, we have the capital. We need 100 persons. All right. In the event that this happens, the calculator cost. [01:03:04] Speaker D: Yes. [01:03:04] Speaker B: There's one month per however. [01:03:05] Speaker D: Yes. [01:03:06] Speaker B: And we put that in bonds. [01:03:07] Speaker D: Yes. [01:03:08] Speaker B: And that. And, and I think it should be a situation. And I love this idea in. Oh boy. Yeah, Thinking about it now, we put that there and you're required to pay on that as you increase your, increase your, your period, your operations. So in the event that there's a solvency or that you, you reach a stage where, oh gosh, we have to send home people. We have no money here to really pay them. We can, the government, the Ministry of Labor can hold you accountable. You will have the money because the government is holding it. [01:03:38] Speaker D: Yes. [01:03:38] Speaker B: And for those of you that don't understand it likened to security for a loan. [01:03:42] Speaker D: Yes, yes. [01:03:43] Speaker B: You have full security. You have partial security. So I'm borrowing a hundred thousand dollars. But I'm, but I'm good. I have $50,000 holding. And when I'm paying back this loan, they probably will take. If I pay in a thousand, they say, all right, 200 going to this money here. So the loan decreasing, your savings increasing. If when you reach the scale and you say, boy, I can't continue, they can now say, okay, well we have this money holding here for you. That was a security. We apply to the loan, we close the loan. Some people do that as well. Yes, but if you pay off the entire thing, then you have 50 something thousand available to you. But if you don't and you reach the 50 mark or 45, you could then say, Listen, I owe 45,062 savings over time build up. Please take from that and solve. That is what it's like with the bond. I love Shadi. I think, you know he has a lawyer. [01:04:34] Speaker D: Yes. And I specifically looked at the answer to see if that was. [01:04:38] Speaker B: Was it, Is it? [01:04:39] Speaker D: I didn't see it. I wouldn't want to say that it wasn't there, but I didn't see it in looking at the debates. But I think it's a good idea to at least bridge the gap when persons are displaced. [01:04:50] Speaker B: Shadi, I want to thank you so much for coming, coming in and spending the last hour with us. I think the information was crucial, done in a timely manner and very much important to us in our daily lives. So that was a double dose of justice. This morning on Freedom between Andisa and Shade. Thank God for traffic, because if Shade, they come in here in that 7 o' clock hour all along. So Shade gone, you understand? I appreciate you, Shadee, of course. [01:05:17] Speaker D: Thank you for having me. [01:05:18] Speaker B: And she's a repeater, but we broke our service last week, so she can't come in and say she. Yeah, she can't come and say she. Yeah, she get break last week. We'll keep you next year and probably she will get. Folks, it's six minutes to the top. The next show is coming up. [01:05:33] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom. 106.5. 106.5.