|
A Recipe For Anarchy
Posted: Sunday, April 28, 2002
By Donna Yawching
YOU know a society is approaching anarchy when it's not just the bandits who think they can hold people to ransom. Trade unions, of course, think they have that right all the time; but when workers are actually going against their trade unions to do it, you know you're really going down the tubes.
The last few weeks in Trinidad and Tobago have been enough to make any rational citizen wonder who, if fact, is running this country. I'm not talking here about UNC versus PNM, I'm talking about government versus pressure groups. First we find a group of teachers trying boldfacedly to dictate to the Ministry of Education; and the teachers' union, Trinidad and Tobago Unified Teachers' Association (TTUTA), not only backs them, but threatens to disrupt the entire nation if their demands are not met.
This is no different from the terrorist who hijacks a plane and, wrong and strong, demands a king's ransom for the release of the prisoners. In this case, of course, the hostages are our schoolchildren, and TTUTA knows that most parents would be prepared to pay whatever price is necessary to guarantee their children's welfare-even to the point of demanding that the government backs down, despite being in the right. Be clear: this is not a case of collective bargaining, with a union acting within its mandate for the good of all its members. This is a case of a union attempting to block a legitimate disciplinary procedure against teachers who, apparently, have stepped way out of line. There's a difference: the first instance is democracy, the second is anarchy.
As if that weren't bad enough, we now have the doctors trying the same tactic: in this case, the hostages are the sick and dying. I have no problem, on the whole, with doctors agitating for appropriate salaries and acceptable working conditions; I am on their side when they throw up their hands in despair and publicise how impossible it is to do their jobs because of lack of equipment, drugs and support staff. (I don't necessarily accept their right to strike, because they are, after all, an essential service.)
But the current impasse is not really a salary negotiation; it is a guerilla attempt by senior doctors to dictate how the health care system is run; and it should not be countenanced. Some years ago, when the Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) were established, medical professionals were asked to voluntarily transfer their employment status to fall under the administration of these new bodies, which were offering different salaries and terms of employment. For whatever reasons, many refused to do so. Now, those same professionals are complaining that their salaries are lower than those of doctors working with the RHAs. All I can say is: Whose fault is that?
I realise the issue is a complicated one, with pensions and Public Service perks forming part of the equation. Who wouldn't want to stay in the Public Service, where incompetence and laziness are cozily protected by the unions (see above); and where it is as impossible to be fired as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Has anything ever come of all the complaints of malpractice and misconduct that we are constantly hearing about at the hospitals? Not that I know of. Clearly, the "ministry doctors" know which side their bread is buttered on.
They are now, however, trying to have their butter-bread and eat it too: they don't want to transfer to the RHAs, but they want the RHA salaries. In the private sector, this would provoke gales of laughter: if you work for Company A, you can hardly insist on being paid Company B's salaries.
In effect, the doctors' "sick-outs" are nothing less than an attempt to dictate national health policy-and I don't recall the public ever electing them to make such decisions. If the government allows them to override its policies, it might as well just pack up and go home: it will no longer be in charge, and should bow out gracefully.
I cannot say whether the RHA system is better or worse than what previously obtained (given the recent financial scandals, one has to wonder). I find it incredible that two administrative systems should exist at all: this is an absurdity that could only happen here. Logically, all employees of an institution should be unequivocally under one administration. If the government of the day has decided that the relevant institution is an RHA, then so be it: the employees should either sign up or quit. It is clear that the current duality is not working.
For better or worse, the RHAs exist: a political decision was made and a national policy formulated. If it is a good system, it should be given the chance to work as designed, and not be sabotaged at every turn. If it is a bad system, it should have been opposed right from the beginning; and even now, there are acceptable ways of lobbying for change. The ballot box is one such way.
What is not acceptable is putting people's lives at risk, or leaving people in pain and suffering, simply because doctors want the best of both worlds. One wonders when was the last time (if ever) they tore their eyes away from their bank statements and read their Hypocratic Oath. It is interesting that, on this matter, not even the PSA is on side-the union that legally represents the same Public Service which the doctors insist on staying with. It seems to me a contradiction, to want to be in the Public Service, yet not be represented by the Public Service's union.
Clearly, the doctors (a demographic which has long equated itself with God, or very close) believe that they are above whatever laws don't happen to suit them. And this, simply put, is the definition of anarchy. One waits, with a certain trepidation, to see who will be next. Meanwhile, Health Minister Colm Imbert gasps and flounders, a boy scout clearly out of his depth.
 Send page by E-Mail
|
|
