On Monday 7th May 2007: The St. Kitts & Nevis Labour Party organized its annual march in recognition of the international observance of a holiday for workers. While observing the march this year one got the undeniable impression that perhaps the connection between the Labour movement and workers' activism has been fractured.
There are several possible reasons for this. The march in St. Kitts has long been associated with the Labour Party as opposed to worker solidarity and as such has mainly attracted Party supporters while the significance of the event for workers has been minimized.
This has been especially apparent during the tenure of this Labour Administration as it has sought to make the march a propaganda event designed to display the strength of its mandate to govern and as a corollary, the weakness of the opposition. It is hardly surprising that workers of a different political persuasion have felt unwelcome in the march and that few see it as anything other than a political event.
However these issues have been current for at least two decades so the fact that they seem to be coming to the fore now portends a significant change in perception.
It has been noted publicly by many persons that the close relationship between the Labour Party and the St. Kitts & Nevis Trades and Labour Union is a problematic one because it allows for the interests of the workers to be subordinated to the political expedience of the Party to the detriment of the workers.
This is especially so since the Government is the largest employer. No one expects any aggrieved civil servant to receive a fair hearing from the Labour Commissioner under the current Labour Party Government and this presents a tremendous credibility crisis for the union. The fact that the union is universally seen to only be an active force when the Labour Party is in opposition only reinforces its image as a political poor relation to the Party. The question is being asked and more loudly. Is the Labour Movement obsolete?
Recent events have amplified these questions because the economic conditions that gave birth to the union have long ceased to be a major factor in the social life of Kittitians and the closure of the SSMC actually and symbolically deprived the union of its raison d'etre. The modern economy is one in which, at least on paper, the rights of workers are protected. Additionally, in a service based economy in a globalized market place, the tried and true techniques familiar to veterans of union organizing and politics are increasingly not only irrelevant but also counter - productive. ~~adz:Right~~
Examine the example of the Industrial Site workers who, it has been reported, have been approached about joining the union. The factories on this site are mainly owned by international corporations which have set up operations here in order to take advantage of, among other benefits, cheap labour. Any hint of organizing which was felt to be detrimental to the profit margin would simply render St. Kitts uncompetitive relative to the other pools of cheap unskilled and semi - skilled laborers in the world. The factories would simply relocate. Obviously new methods are necessary to resolve labor conflicts in this modern setting.
There is no evidence that the leadership of either the Labour Party or the Labour Union has adjusted itself to the modern reality or even that the challenges of the modern economy have been recognized. It seems to be business as usual and this seems almost certain to consign the Labour Movement in St. Kitts to the history books.
Unless the St. Kitts & Nevis Trades and Labour Union radically changes both its polity and its leadership structure and embraces a system which accommodates both independence in the political process and broad and representative participation by workers it will continue apace its inexorable march to obsolescence. It will eventually become an anachronism.
As usual, the state of the march gave rise to speculation about the direction in which political winds are blowing, which is just one more example of how the union is perceived to be divorced from the workers struggle. The closure of the SSMC and the attendant unresolved questions about the universally decried compensation package offered simply compound the crisis.
One must assume that the union was part of the negotiating process and that it failed miserably to represent the rights of the now former sugar workers. It is now incumbent on the union to prove that it still has a place in modern St. Kitts or it will be forced to shut up shop. That would be an ignoble end unbefitting the illustrious ideals and visionary work of those pioneers blazed the trail at the dawn of the twentieth century.
