Marriott workforce
Posted By Staff Writer On February 24, 2013 @ 5:01 am In Editorial |
It was the PPP’s premier spokesperson Ms Gail Teixeira who decided to take on the media last Monday, by accusing them of facilitating criticism of a racist and xenophobic character in relation to the employment of an all-Chinese workforce to construct the Marriott Hotel. Well racism is a word which gets bandied about with great recklessness in this society, and it seems where that is concerned nothing has changed.
What seems to have happened is that the government and party found themselves cornered without even a rationalization to offer that made sense to the public, let alone the unions and opposition politicians. As is their wont in such situations, therefore, they decided that a frontal assault on the motives of those asking the questions was the appropriate tactic. That it was utterly misconceived certainly does not appear to have given them pause for thought.
In a Gina press release the contents of which we had published on February 9, the CEO of Atlantic Hotels Inc (AHI) Winston Brassington, had been quoted as saying that the use of a mostly Chinese labour force to build the Marriott was just one of several conditionalities designed to achieve efficient and speedy construction. He was reported as saying too that the contractor, the Shanghai Construction Group, had said they could lower their contract cost provided they supplied their own labour. He appended to this the tendentious comment that the issue of productivity would be a cause for concern, as well as that of communication, and said that the lack of specialized skills required for the contract needed to be recognized.
All of this was given short shrift by the critics, who pointed out that in a country like this there should be no shortage of those who could serve as translators on the site, and who hammered the implication that Guyanese did not work. As it is, it hardly needs a response, given the innumerable complex – and durable − structures of all kinds built courtesy of Guyanese workers.
A rather lame, somewhat tangential attempt at defence of the allegation (pointed out by Mr Sam Barakat in a letter to this newspaper on Wednesday) emanated from the Manager of an entirely different project – that of the fibre optic cable. Head of the project, Mr Alexei Ramotar, is now blaming the Guyanese workforce for the current delays in the laying of the cable. Presumably we were supposed to extrapolate from this that the same would happen in the case of the Marriott Hotel were Guyanese to be employed there. However, as Mr Barakat observed, despite earlier hold-ups no mention was previously made by Mr Ramotar of the dilatoriness of the Guyanese workforce until now.
The real problem for Mr Brassington’s comments, however, came in a story published by Stabroek News on February 18,where we reported that a concession to the contractor over the hiring of Chinese workers for a lower cost was not reflected in the contract between AHI and Shanghai Construction Group. Mr Brassington has not explained this.
After Mr Brassington, it was the turn of Minister of Labour Nanda Gopaul to see if he could retrieve anything from the situation. We had reported him in our February 14 edition as saying that at this stage the contractor was using highly technical and advanced construction methods, and it would be some time before the Guyanese workers acquired the competencies to use the technology. Among other things, he said, the contractor’s technology obviated the need for spirit levels. This communication, it might be mentioned, had followed an impromptu visit the Minister had made to the building site, and had this not been explained, the unwary reader might have been forgiven for thinking that he hadn’t been near it.
Be that as it may, Dr Gopaul was followed to the site in a manner of speaking the next day, because a protest was held outside it. Speaking to this newspaper during the picketing exercise, MP and APNU Vice-Chairman Rupert Roopnaraine said, “What we have seen on this site are Chinese workers fetching sand and doing work that is menial. I see nothing technical in what they are doing…” So instead of the Chinese engineers with their post spirit-level technology − however complex that might or might not be − we have these supposedly highly trained Chinese workers pushing wheelbarrows full of sand.
At the very least, one might have thought, it would seem to be a misuse of their presumably specialised skills, and given the higher remuneration levels usually attendant on these, would hardly be conducive to lower costs. So far the government has made no attempt to explain to the rest of us − uninitiated as we are in the technological complexities of the post spirit-level era − what is so especially technical about moving sand on a construction site. Is there some secret technological advance we are missing here?
After that fiasco, it was then the turn of the heavy artillery in the form of Ms Teixeira to train her sights on the phalanx of critics. She belaboured the media with the anti-discrimination clauses of the constitution, strangely oblivious to the fact that the discrimination is directed against Guyanese workers and in favour of the Chinese, not the other way around. So any sentiments of “anti-nationality,” as she called it, are not on the side of the critics. She followed this with a ramble about Guyana being a signatory to the convention on migrant workers, as though the Chinese workers on the Marriott who have been deliberately recruited in China by the Chinese contractor are normal migrant workers. But even if they do fall technically into the category, what steps is the Government of Guyana taking to ensure that it – not its critics – is in compliance with the convention? Does it know anything about the Chinese workers’ recruitment, the conditions under which they live and work, what they are being paid, etc, etc?
Ms Teixeira did give a recitation of all the previous projects where foreign workers had been brought into the country, including the stadium and the Skeldon Sugar Factory, where she said no objections had been raised, from which premise she jumped to the conclusion that present complaints smelt of “racism” and “anti-nationality.” Just why it was “racism” now, if there had been no earlier complaints from the critics was not elucidated. Similarly, with xenophobia. The point is that it doesn’t matter at what stage the issue is raised, there are still questions to answer.
In the piecemeal defence being advanced by the government, Gina recently cited Omai as having brought in about 300 Canadians in the first phase of their mining operation, continuing on with the inevitable remark that there was no complaint at that time. However, Mr Christopher Ram in today’s Business Page, took the agency to task on this blatant inaccuracy, saying that Cambior had nothing like that number of Canadians on the site. With regard to the building of the US Embassy too, he said, a mostly Guyanese workforce had been employed.
Even the government’s technological arguments have a certain hollow sound given that some of the Chinese projects here have been less than a resounding success; perhaps they could have benefited from a Guyanese engineering input − other categories of workers apart. The problematic Skeldon factory is still not functioning as it was designed to do, and the Chinese contractors have not been held to account, while Ms Teixeira maybe forgot the catastrophe that was the Region Nine hydropower facility, where there was a landslide after completion. It will most likely never work again. And we are being told that Guyanese do not have the skills?
This is not to denigrate Chinese skills or technology; a nation which can send a man into space is certainly not lacking in that department. However, given the anxiety of the government to secure funding for any number of projects in a hurry at the lowest possible price, are we the recipients of China’s best quality expertise, of which there is ample evidence outside this country? Most of all, does the government have at its disposal the kind of professional advice it needs to scrutinise these project proposals to ensure they meet the standards we should be demanding?
Finally, as we reported yesterday, Minister Gopaul came back into the fray to tell the public that it is sometimes necessary to make concessions in order to achieve development. The Marriott? Development? Only the government knows how those two words link up.
