Mismanaging a national asset

The headline to this commentary might seem misleading when you realize that we are talking about the debate and crisis over GSP+. Why we consider it a national asset is because many sectors – employers, employees, trade unions, government – have all benefited from the European Union’s GSP+ scheme that was given to Sri Lanka in mid 2005. While it is mostly the apparel industry that has benefited from the duty free access to the EU, other sectors among several other products that are entitled to these concessions are gradually taking advantage of the scheme.

To lose it, as we seem to be heading in that direction amidst a flurry of diplomatic moves and slinging of accusations as to who would be responsible, would be catastrophic, to say the least. This is not saying that the industry will collapse and some 200,000 workers, according to jittery trade unions, will be thrown on the streets.

The industry will survive; struggle it may; yet it will survive as it did in the aftermath of the end to quotas under the Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA). There too a doomsday scenario emerged and ‘we are heading for a major collapse’ crisis was enacted. Yes, half the factories have shut down – from 800 to 360 – and the workforce reduced to 270,000 from 330,000. However if there was a crisis of unemployment how does one explain why some 30,000 jobs in the FTZs are going a-begging and there are no takers, when ‘unemployed’ workers should be lining up just like what happens in Bangladesh, our main competitor?

All parties – the government, employers, trade unions must take responsibility for the GSP+ crisis and instead of barking at each other; come together, view it at a macro level and take stock of a possible loss to the country. The whole issue has also been dragged into an unnecessary political drama resulting in the government and the others being intransigent and not willing to bend or come up with a compromise solution.

The apparel industry is set to lose billions of rupees in annual income – if we don’t get it -- which is what GSP+ has brought while the government will have to forego that sum in terms of valuable foreign exchange and face the wrath of the workers, some of whom may lose their jobs.

Trade unions are flexing their muscles annoyed that the government or the employers didn’t see it fit to draw them into the discussion, although they have a potent weapon – powerful global unions which have consultative status in the EU.

Employers are unwilling to bow to ILO conventions that prescribe freedom of association and collective bargaining as a worker’s legitimate right. The government is not willing – as it says -- to forego the country’s sovereignty in endorsing international treaties.

Trade unions say they are prepared to get involved for ‘the sake of the worker’ but their support is conditional as they had ‘burnt’ their fingers earlier when a roadmap was set as a condition for the ongoing GSP+, which is yet to be implemented properly.

Where does the worker fit into this jigsaw puzzle? All three parties and even the opposition claim to be working in the interests of the workers. But are they?

Can we point the finger at one single sector or entity and say you are to blame if the GSP+ is not extended? On the other hand, shouldn’t all the stakeholders work on the basis of ‘let’s save the GSP+’ under a positive approach instead of preparing the groundwork to ‘blame the other’ if GSP+ fails?

Is there some common ground in these hardened positions? Are the stakeholders willing to bend a little; give in a little; prepared to listen to an opposing point of view without shooting it down essentially because it was an opposing view? Can the stakeholders rise above the rhetoric and rationally, pragmatically, objectively and together look for some common issues? There is a need for a unified plan of action that would command the respect of the EU which in some ways is using this as a bargaining chip to slam the government on its human rights record, even though that’s not the official position.

However this is not about a bad human rights record. What about the rights of the workers who may lose their jobs, according to trade unions? Isn’t that a right the EU must surely be worried about? At the end of the day, what is more important – losing a job or losing a right to strike? It’s the workers who should answer this – not the trade unions.

While employers also need to ensure workers’ wages are in line with the rising COL, trade unions are no saints either. While the right to strike is important, what does one do if an economy is crippled by strike action, if there is a threat of jobs being lost and if a business goes bankrupt? It’s the workers who ultimately suffer as some cases have shown when worker agitation led to voluntary liquidation of companies. On the other hand the apparel industry went to court and won an injunction against the port strike some years back creating a new tool to tackle strikes, unleashing a new weapon against strikes.

Next week trade unions and employers are meeting to discuss the GSP+ crisis and see how they could work together to avert a cancellation of the scheme. We implore the parties to put their heads together, look beyond politics or set agendas, sincerely consider the plight of the workers if this concession is lost and come up with a game plan that would not only ensure we have a good plan of action but also prove to the EU and the world that there is unity in diversity, even in industry.