It will be naive of me to think that this gentleman is not the mouthpiece of the government. If that's the case it stands the reason why the government suffered a humiliating failure in gaining public support during the impasse.
I was expecting too much from you, Sir, by hoping that you would have acknowledged the government's role in that industrial relations debacle.
In my several posts on this issue I have apportioned blame on both parties, but in your case you deliberately ingnore government's culpability continuiously.
The government's intransigence and ineptness was equally responsible. They should have moved to the 4.0% or 4.125% instead of the 3.5% they were stubbornly sticking to.
That's what happens to us when we become card carrying members of political parties, we engage in demagogery and a certain mendicancy (singing for our suppers).
We become devoid of reason and logical rational thinking goes out of the window. As that attitude begins to take root in our body politic so does the foundations for facism.
Ask the people of Guyana,and Haiti, they have lived it.
It behooves every citizen of St. Lucia to be vigilant and guard our demorcratic way of life. Let's be reasonible and responsible in the manner we support our political parties. The politicians need to tone down the rhetoric, refrain from appealing to the basest instincts of your supporters.
I am now convinced that Denys is not right upstairs. First he claims that he claims that he supports the need for there to be a union, the makes a weird comparison to England, claims that the strike is an attempt to get rid of the government, and concludes that the teachers et al. are fools for standing up for their rights. All in all, the article sums up to a bunch of rubbish. Off course that is expected, just look at the writer.
First of all, let me point out the the negotiations process was neither properly not professionally conducted. However, here lies the issue. Either King got bad advice, or he was unable to understand the information his advisors provided him, when he agreed to the 14.5% in the first place. Despite what he claims, the economy did not show that it would support that increase at the time.
The problem is government cannot announce they have no money to pay one union, then later, hold discussions with another union, and based on what was agreed, impose it on the first union. Negotiations is not a "you have no choice but to take what I offer." I can point out many other things wrong with what went on, like the threatening of persons jobs.
There is also the history, of King making a number of bad decisions, and persons simply have to cast a blind eye. I can mention his bending over and touching his toes trick, or his decision to build a statue of Sir John. The issue is he is setting a bad precedence of trying to bully the trade unions, even when he is wrong. and surely Denys would see something wrong with his announcement to bypass the union to speak with the workers directly.
As for trying to get rid of the government, is that not what is said about everything in St. Lucia. When Estephane chose to drive an unlicensed vehicle, I am sure it was the opposition that asked him to do it. When Rufus became Bruce Tucker, the opposition planned it years in advance (I will leave out him refusing to be screened). Mondesir selling of patients records is neither his doing either. When the government could not hold a house meeting for almost a year when they first came into office simply because they did not know how, opposition fault
The bottom line is things are done too casually in St. Lucia, and while no party is perfect one expects a minimum level of standards.
8 comments:
Denis the singer, againnnnn?
hey hey hey The Voice people ... y'all mixed up Mr Springer's headline with another story. Fix it please.
It will be naive of me to think that this gentleman is not the mouthpiece of the government.
If that's the case it stands the reason why the government suffered a humiliating failure in gaining public support during the impasse.
I was expecting too much from you, Sir, by hoping that you would have acknowledged the government's role in that industrial relations debacle.
In my several posts on this issue I have apportioned blame on both parties, but in your case you deliberately ingnore government's culpability continuiously.
The government's intransigence and ineptness was equally responsible. They should have moved to the 4.0% or 4.125% instead of the 3.5% they were stubbornly sticking to.
That's what happens to us when we become card carrying members of political parties, we engage in demagogery and a certain mendicancy (singing for our suppers).
We become devoid of reason and logical rational thinking goes out of the window. As that attitude begins to take root in our body politic so does the foundations for facism.
Ask the people of Guyana,and Haiti, they have lived it.
It behooves every citizen of St. Lucia to be vigilant and guard our demorcratic way of life. Let's be reasonible and responsible in the manner we support our political parties.
The politicians need to tone down the rhetoric, refrain from appealing to the basest instincts of your supporters.
I am now convinced that Denys is not right upstairs. First he claims that he claims that he supports the need for there to be a union, the makes a weird comparison to England, claims that the strike is an attempt to get rid of the government, and concludes that the teachers et al. are fools for standing up for their rights. All in all, the article sums up to a bunch of rubbish. Off course that is expected, just look at the writer.
First of all, let me point out the the negotiations process was neither properly not professionally conducted. However, here lies the issue. Either King got bad advice, or he was unable to understand the information his advisors provided him, when he agreed to the 14.5% in the first place. Despite what he claims, the economy did not show that it would support that increase at the time.
The problem is government cannot announce they have no money to pay one union, then later, hold discussions with another union, and based on what was agreed, impose it on the first union. Negotiations is not a "you have no choice but to take what I offer." I can point out many other things wrong with what went on, like the threatening of persons jobs.
There is also the history, of King making a number of bad decisions, and persons simply have to cast a blind eye. I can mention his bending over and touching his toes trick, or his decision to build a statue of Sir John. The issue is he is setting a bad precedence of trying to bully the trade unions, even when he is wrong. and surely Denys would see something wrong with his announcement to bypass the union to speak with the workers directly.
As for trying to get rid of the government, is that not what is said about everything in St. Lucia. When Estephane chose to drive an unlicensed vehicle, I am sure it was the opposition that asked him to do it. When Rufus became Bruce Tucker, the opposition planned it years in advance (I will leave out him refusing to be screened). Mondesir selling of patients records is neither his doing either. When the government could not hold a house meeting for almost a year when they first came into office simply because they did not know how, opposition fault
The bottom line is things are done too casually in St. Lucia, and while no party is perfect one expects a minimum level of standards.
It's embarassing to say the least for people to go on strike in times of economic crisis.
tra la la - can I get my steak now too?
Shorter quiz for Mr Springer - who was in power when the collective IQ of cabinet fell below that of a potbellied pig?
The answer: Kenny Bouden Rubber! LOL
Post a Comment