WHO IS a worker? The question has plagued attempts to complete a programme of labour reform, aimed at positioning the country to make best use of new World Trade Organisation standards, initiated by the Government over two years ago.Despite extensive talks involving the Government, the trade unions and the employers over the period, it still threatens to further delay the reform measures.
The problem stems from the fact that in the Labour Relation and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA), "worker" is interpreted as, "an individual who has entered into or works or normally works under a contract of employment."
But, trade unionists have insisted that the definition is too vague and leaves workers who are employed on contract open to all forms of exploitation. They also complain that the definition did not protect workers from being made redundant, then being re-employed by the same com-pany, under contracts which cost them various benefits including pension and health coverage.
On the other hand, security guard companies have insisted that the current definition did not cover these workers and, therefore, they are not eligible to join unions or to have disputes which can be referred to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT).
A number of attempts to reach a compromise on a new definition have failed over the past two years. These attempts have gone through a joint parliamentary committee as well as the tripartite machinery of the Labour Advisory Council, comprising representatives of government, employers and trade unions.
The problem goes beyond the ordinary meaning of "worker".
As defined under the LRIDA it does not accommodate the conflicting views of management and labour. The differences do not constitute a trade dispute which could be arbitrated by the IDT. One answer is for Parliament to amend the law even though consensus is preferable. It is time to halt the pussyfooting over labour reform.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
