By Shakeel MOHAMED
Minister of Labour
lexpress du 13 septembre 2013
Dear Sir,
It was with great pleasure that I have read the article entitled ‘Les INCOHERENCES du ministre du Travail’ written
by Mr. Jean-Mée DESVEAUX. It is not very often that we come across
constructive criticism on issues of national interest. I may not always
agree with everything Mr. Jean-Mée Desveaux writes, however, I appreciate
his straight forward approach.
Nevertheless, I need to draw the attention of Mr. Desveaux and your readers to the following :
1. The decision to “freeze” the recruitment of foreign workers in the construction sector has nothing to do with the events that occurred at REAL GARMENTS LTD.
2. Several days before the events at REAL GARMENTS LTD, a meeting was
held with the Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Economic
Development and stakeholders of the construction industry. One of the
aims was to find ways and means to encourage Mauritians to take up work
within the construction industry.
3. That also meant to;
a. identify the scarcity areas within the sector;
b. Find out reasons that keep many Mauritians away from big
construction companies and instead prefer to work informally within the
sector;
c. Confirm information to the effect that Mauritian workers were
being paid less when working for big constructions and earning more when
sticking to the informal sector;
d. Assess information that foreign workers were being paid the
minimum provided for in the relevant Remuneration Order (RO) as opposed
to Mauritians who would rightfully expect more;
e. Once the scarcity areas identified provide appropriate training
and placement to the local workforce with a view to widening the job
opportunities.
4. I decided not to continue issuing permits in the construction
industry while preparing for a new system. This will now enable us to
use the time available until 15th October 2013 to hold consultations
with all stakeholders in order to devise new policy options concerning
issuing of work permits in the construction industry.
5. I am more than aware that foreign workers are essential to the
construction industry as well as other sectors of our economy. However, I
am duty bound to do everything within my power to at least try to widen
the job opportunities for our citizens. This is in the national
interest. It is only when we have done our level best to place the
Mauritians at center stage of our economic development that we can
safely afford to consider the foreign workers as a necessity.
6. In an attempt to give credence to his assumptions, the author has
mixed the needs of foreign labour in the construction sector with that
of the textile industry! He clearly believes that one size fits all.
This is where we clearly differ. Let me underline that the measures
taken in the construction sector do not in any way concern the
manufacturing and export oriented enterprises. For example, the reasons
that make a local stay away from the textile industry are not the same
as the one keeping him away from the construction sector. The shift
system being used in the sea food sector such as at Thon des Mascareignes is
one of the reasons that keep local workers away from that sector and
that cannot therefore be compared to the construction sector. I am in no
way being confrontational when I underline the reluctance of the
private sector to embrace new provisions of the law pertaining to night
shift! Each sector face different realities. That is why it is
imperative to allow each sector to flourish with its own requirements in
relation to the need for foreign labour. I am once again not in any way
against foreign labour. I am simply saying that it is only when
Mauritians have been given all opportunities of training in scarcity
areas that will in turn make them employable and we will reasonably be
entitled to consider foreign labour.
7. When Mr. Jean-Mée Desveaux writes ‘‘ il fait abstraction du fait que les salaires que Real Garments payait aux Bangladais jusqu’à début août étaient bien la misère des Remuneration Orders, s’élevant à environ Rs 4 000…and ‘Que l’action industrielle du
début du mois ait enfreint l’accord du 2 août qui octroie le nouveau
salaire semble être un fait indéniable. Que ce soit équitable pour un
employeur d’imposer 60 heures de travail pour une rémunération de Rs 8
500. Par mois nous renvoie à la case départ, soit que le salaire de base
sans heures supplementaires demeure les Rs 4 000 du RO’’, he seems not to be aware of the provisions of the Employment Relations Act of 2008.
8. As Minister I can only operate within legal parameters pursuant to the Employment Relations Act.
9. The Remuneration Orders for the Export Enterprises and the Factory
Workers Remuneration Orders date back to 1984. Those two RO’s, are what
determines the minimum prescribed salary and conditions of employment
within the relevant sectors. Why is it that those two RO’s were never
sent to the National Remuneration Board for a complete review ever since
1984? Has this not contributed to Mauritians fleeing the sector? Has
this not also contributed to an increase in the dependency of those
sectors on foreign labour? You will surely agree that there is a
correlation between the two! I have on the 22nd October 2012 in
accordance with section 91 of the Employment Relations Act referred the
two RO’s to the National Remuneration Board for a complete review.
10. I have done so because I am not satisfied with the wages and conditions of employment prevailing in that sector.
11. In light of the above;
a.Can a Minister of Labour, Industrial
Relations and Employment ask any person paying the minimum wage as
prescribed by a RO to pay more?
The answer is no. I am, unfortunately, not legally entitled and empowered to do so.
b. How can a worker obtain more that the minimum prescribed wage?
The way forward is to engage in negotiations and/ or a “collective bargaining” mechanism.
c. Can a Minister of labour intervene in such a process?
The answer is no. I am not legally entitled or empowered to do so unless both parties call upon the Minister to intervene.
d.Can the Minister unilaterally get involved
in the process of negotiations between the workers and employers even
as regards the issue of overtime?
The answer is no.
12. In the case of REAL GARMENTS LTD, neither was I nor was any
officer of my Ministry ever called upon by both parties to intervene or
help in the negotiations process between worker and employer, which led
to the agreement of the 2nd of August 2013. It would therefore have been
unlawful for a Minister to intervene unilaterally in those
negotiations. Had I done so, I would have been in violation of the law
of the land and international conventions of the International Labour
Organisation (ILO). The ideas you put forward in the article are
therefore based on totally wrong premises.
13. As regards the Decent Work Country Programme, I have requested
the ILO to provide us with experts to advise on the merits of a National
Minimum Wage Policy. Moreover, the National Tripartite Forum will soon
be called upon to engage into full-fledged discussions on this issue,
which I hold very dearly. In the mean time I am obliged to operate
within the parameters of the law even though Mr. Jean Mée Desvaux seems
to be of the view that to do otherwise is acceptable.
14. I thank Mr. Jean Mée Desveaux for providing me with a defense for
my alleged “erreur de jeunesse”. I take it as a compliment. I only wish I
could reciprocate by providing him with a defence. I unfortunately
cannot because his experience knowledge and “age” make him duty bound to
base his reasoning on facts as opposed to assumptions. Now that the
author is in presence of facts, I humbly invite him to revisit his
conclusions. As for me, I look forward to more such articles as that of
the author Mr. Jean Mée Desvaux. Such views can surely contribute
positively to the construction of our nation.
15. I am 45 years old. Proud to have been born in 1968, the year we
obtained our freedom. Mauritian brains, heart and sweat have forged our
economic success. I believe in the ingenuity of our people. I want our
people to believe in themselves. Belief in our ability as a nation will
make us masters of our destiny. Our human capital is our only natural
resource that holds the key to the future we all would like our children
to live in.
OUR REPLY
by Jean-Mée DESVEAUX
We have no doubt that the reader will appreciate Minister Shakeel
Mohamed’s paper “Facts v/s Assumptions”. We thank him heartily for his
courtesy and for this contribution in enlightening the Mauritian public
and employers alike on a move which has so far shocked a myriad of
employers’ organisations in the local construction industry. It stands
to reason that if Mr. Mohamed’s explanation had preceded his new
initiatives rather than the reverse, he would not have needed this
damage-control exercise.
I kindly draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that I am not
guilty of the first point he criticises me for. Unlike several other
commentators in the media, I have drawn no causal relationship
whatsoever between the REAL GARMENTS incident and his introduction of
the foreign labour restriction in the construction industry. L’express was
aware of the meeting he had held with employers in the construction
industry. It is interesting to note, by the by, that we have had the
opportunity to meet some of the employers present at that meeting who
declared themselves rather surprised by the Minister’s subsequent knee
jerk reaction regarding foreign workers.
All Minister Mohamed’s points from 2 to 5 are cogent and perfectly acceptable.
Relative to point no 6): I have made no assumptions in the paper. And
I certainly didn’t need the one Mr. Mohamed attributes to me. My method
was a very simple one of bringing to light various statements from the
same Minister which, having been uttered at different times and in
different circumstances, do not, unfortunately for him, agree with each
other. I have not been accused of misquotation.
In the Minister’s interview in Weekly that I quoted, Mr. Mohamed puts the Thon desMascareignes on
a par with the construction industry regarding these sectors’
difficulty in attracting local manpower. And that quote is quite
graphic. No criticism of misquotation here either. I didn’t draw that
parallel between sectors, he did.
We cannot but agree with the Minister that we should use all our
labour force before employing people from other climes. He cannot be
criticised for that. Wouldn’t the Minister however acknowledge that you
can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink! The local
workers snub the construction industry, as he has himself often
reiterated, and if Mr. Mohamed solves that problem in three months’
time, we promise to declare him a nonpareil in our columns.
Point 7 and 8 are quite interesting. The Minister says that in spite
of the equity argument which he totally agrees with, he can only abide
by the parameters of the law. We understand that. It is unfortunate that
the Minister does not quite apprehend that the image he conveyed in the
midst of the REAL GARMENTS foray was not that of a reluctant supporter
but that of an ardent adherent full of gusto in the conviction of his
cause. May we attribute that one to his youthful enthusiasm overtaking
his collected self again?
Point No 9 is a piece of welcome news which all Mauritians will be
relieved to learn. Why hasn’t the Minister’s communication cell deemed
it proper to disseminate such important information much before the
stuff hit the fan?
Having received the information from the Minister’s paper and seeing
no challenge to the veracity of the mutually exclusive quotations, I
cannot but fear that Mr. Mohamed has a mild to severe form of
foot-in-mouth disease. This prognostic is not as severe as it sounds in
view of the age of the patient who will one day, like Andrew Marvell, be
able to say “but at my back I alwaies hear, time’s wingéd chariot hurrying near”.
No comments:
Post a Comment