Port Authority retrenchment?

Opposition MP Edmund Hinkson is claiming that an estimated 100 workers at the Port Authority will be laid off.

The St James North representative said the management of the port had already notified the Barbados Workers Union of its intention and the two parties were due to begin negotiations.

“One issue that I have not seen highlighted in the Press yet. On the 16th of April, the chief executive officer of the Port Authority wrote to [BWU General Secretary] Sir Roy Trotman, giving him notice that the Port Authority plans to lay off 100. . . out of the 392 workers, 25 per cent of the port are proposed to lose their jobs,” Hinkson said at a press briefing yesterday.

“Under the Employment Rights Act, notice was given to the main union of the workers of the port and they were to enter negotiations on how best this [retrenchment] could be done.”

Hinkson, who co-hosted the briefing with Senator Wilfred Abrahams in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, said despite news that workers would be sent home, many of those already on the breadline were yet to be compensated.

“We have the situation where after months now the 47 per cent of the National Housing Corporation [workers] that have gone home – that is the amount by which National Housing Corporation staff were cut – they haven’t received their severance pay or employment rights benefits as yet . . . the Transport Board workers, the 250-odd or so, they haven’t received theirs yet either,” he said.

4 Responses to Port Authority retrenchment?

  1. Patrick Blackman June 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Edmund you know how things work, so cut the partisan crap. If the port cannot sustain the level of employment as unfortunate as it may be people have to be laid off, its just that simple.

  2. Veroniva Boyce
    Veroniva Boyce June 29, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Not looking good.

  3. wizzie July 1, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Patrick Blackman you are a very heartless man,how placing people on the bread line can be descried as ” its just that simple”. these very same people were told vote to keep your jobs and they voted with the assurance that their jobs with be secured.So this Partisan thing you telling Edmund about is the say thing you using here and you need to stop it too.Last but not lease can you remember the Prime Minister saying not a single worker will be going home under his watch. Are you trying to tell me that all of that time he didn’t know that the level of employment could not been sustained. I can’t see myself being attach to any of the two parties,because I can think on my own and don’t need then to think for me. Just read Caswell Article in the Sunday sun and see for yourself, we the ones at the end need to not looking through the eyes of a party and see through our own eyes.

  4. Patrick Blackman July 1, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Wizzie, this has nothing to do with supporting a party, I support neither. The point here sir is that a vote should not be based on a job, it should be based on the politician and his party being able to achieve the goals necessary for good governance. If you voted for a job then you are an idiot. I am not heartless,if the government cannot sustain the employment of these people, are you saying the government should keep them employed? What about the rest of the population, don’t they have needs as well?

    We constantly believe a politician should find us a job, pay our bills etc. just because we voted for him. That type of mentally is why the country is in the state it is. Both parties are horrible and don’t deserve a vote. What is lacking is a clear policy on education, industry, agriculture, health etc. these are the things you base your vote on not a job.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *