THE EDITOR: There seem to be a new breed of massa infusing or have already infused himself/itself on state/government employees.
While trade union leaders urge their memberships to keep chanting that old nauseating “massa day done” mantra over and over again, when you take a careful in-depth look at this generations-old purportedly wake-up call, aren’t they (union leaders) the very ones who play a key role in promoting a now disguised but same old massa syndrome via continued state/government dependency?
Do employees of private companies face/encounter similar challenges that government employees seem to be perpetually crying out against?
Do they (workers in the private industry) encounter and/or question what they perceive as under-paid salaries, uncertain health and safety conditions etc? And if they do, are these problems proficiently handled without any unions’ intervention?
And if everything’s acceptable with private employment, while state employees have to be forever striking and protesting for better wages, conditions etc, why does the average Trini continue to prefer “a government wuk?”
Government ministers (at any given time) may threaten dismissal or even imprisonment for workers who stay away from their jobs upon calls by unions, but the average Trini knows very well that is just talk.
With governments (past and present) always prepared to stoop to the demands of the state-employed labour force, more so just prior to general elections, and union executives themselves not being pressured by their massive memberships for financial accountability, aren’t they (governments and union leaders) realistically today’s massa without the masses being conscious of it?
A good example of reverse psychology is how quickly union leaders establish a chummy relationship, not with the political party that wins a general election but with the losers who are now relegated to the opposition benches (and who cannot make any financial decisions regarding state employees) for the next five years.
Why? Because they (union executives) have realised that large union memberships demand not just recognition but, more importantly, financial solidity, therefore memberships must always be numerically at a peak. As such, they must always be seen as continually pressuring those in charge of state resources. And you can’t be supporting an employer and bullying them at the same time, can you?
In primary school I learned that little drops of water, little grains of sand, make the mightiest ocean and form the largest land. And while most trade unions’ financial members might be familiar with that statement, it would appear they’ve not for one second associated it with their individual “small” financial contributions to their representative union.
And added to our perpetual hypnotic, spellbinding red and yellow political divide, we seem destined to go this way for a long, long time.
Massa day done? Says who?
LLOYD RAGOO, Chaguanas