IT MUST be a source of wonder, or a case of a split personality, why over the last two weeks there have been attempts to inflict internal damage. What else could one say, when one looks at the timing of the FirstCaribbean Bank strike (on October 24th), as well as the failed attempt by the National Association of Taxi Operators (which has that famous acronym NATA), on Monday, October 27.
Why I say this is from any objective point of view, I cannot see in the long-term, how those who took or attempted to take such action, will come out better at the end of the action, regardless of the circumstances.
Let us start with FirstCaribbean Bank, which is one of the smaller banks in the island. Yes, there have been protracted negotiations with their employers (from May I believe) but if the best advice to workers is to take strike action at the end of the month, inconveniencing most of its customers (who in case they do not realise it, will be the ones that have to pay their salaries and any new increases) was crass at best. The majority of its customers, who had monthly bills to pay would clearly be inconvenienced.
The bottom line would be that if I were a customer at that bank, regardless of the justification, I would be most upset at both sides and would start to re-consider my business with an institution that treats me so callously. In my humble opinion they could have informed their customers ahead of time of the strike action and seem to be making attempts to treat their most important stakeholders with respect. I will be watching the balance sheet of this bank carefully at the end of the next six months to see if there is any haemorrhaging of funds from this bank. The implication should be clear.
The next action was the taxi operators island-wide attempt at withdrawing their services from the public, on Monday of last week. This action turned out to be a dismal failure, especially in the Corporate Area, and a Thursday follow-up protest was not even attempted. Here, the taxi operators at least gave notice of their protest action, but they miscalculated in several ways. One, as most of its members are self-employed they stood to lose the most from the strike.
LIMITED SUPPORT
Two, without an attempt to coerce other drivers (by badman tactics) into supporting the strike, there would be limited support. Three, and of most importance, the changed transport circumstances over the last three years has meant that with the acquisition of personal vehicles by most persons and the availability of a reputable public transport alternative (i.e. the JUTC), commuters would hardly be inconvenienced unless NATO decided to engage in illegal acts like blocking roads or carrying out acts of intimidation. There are many taxi operators who would have been sympathetic to the reasons for the strike (unjustified shooting by the police officers of taxi operators) but who cannot afford to lose a day's income or are not sensitised strongly to take collective joint action.
What both actions boil down to seems to me to be an attempt to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, although I leave it up to you to determine which union action showed more maturity, if any.
