Imagine you are driving on the road anywhere in Jamaica. As you know, here we drive on the left, but all of a sudden a driver decides that he can't wait and starts speeding down the right hand side of the road and crashes into your car. The driver's explanation for wrecking your car is that he couldn't wait for the road to clear and furthermore, he has no money to pay for the repair of your car. What if he tells you that he is a powerful man in society? What if he says that his non-payment and hence failure to meet his lawful obligation to repair your car is 'non-negotiable'? How would you react?

Imagine another scenario. You rent your house to a tenant and signed an agreement to increase the rent at the end of one year. When that time comes, the tenant tells you he has no money to meet the new rent and that is 'non-negotiable'. He will not be paying anymore as agreed. How would you react?

Both scenarios could be used to describe the prime minister's response to trade unions last week that he was not paying the agreed wage increase to public-sector workers and that it was 'non-negotiable'. The prime minister had signed such an agreement to pay a wage increase of seven per cent effective April 1 to public-sector employees. A cornerstone of civilisation is that we will, as a society, adhere to certain 'rules' of conduct.

Avoid chaos

For example, we agree to drive on the left in Jamaica or on the right in the United States. Everyone is obliged to follow that rule to avoid chaos. We agree on the standards for certain professions, so we can avoid 'quacks' and 'fake-cops'. Not everyone can call him or herself a doctor and start to operate on patients left, right and centre. That would be dangerous to society. So, too, in commercial relations there are 'rules'. One such rule is that people must honour their agreements. Another rule allows for people to agree to amend or change any previous agreement that they make. However, no rule exists that allows any one party to change that agreement unilaterally.

When ordinary citizens break these rules, the security forces and the courts are established to deal with these infractions lest anarchy descends on the land. Government is there to uphold the rule of law not to break them.

Arrogance

The decision of the Government to unilaterally break the solemn agreement with the trade unions smacks of arrogance and undermines the principle of the 'rule of law'. Of course, the unions and their workers may seek to have this corrected by the court or industrial action. However, the most important point for the rest of society is the example the Government is setting when its action undermines the fundamental principles of society. What is there to prevent private-sector employers following the Government's example and break signed agreements with their workers? What is there to prevent employers from unilaterally reducing the wages of their employees?

Worse, what is there to prevent the Government next time around from unilaterally reducing the salary of civil servants and other public-sector employees? Bye, bye to the rule of law. Welcome to a country of expediency and a world of might over right. In that world, it is the ends that justify the means - anything goes. Lottery scammers, con men, 'ginnals', hustlers and extortionists will be celebrating the victory of their 'trade practices' over respect for rules. Genuine investors and creditors will ask if that is the norm in Jamaica why they should do business here.

The issue is not about the Government's ability to pay an increase to public-sector workers. The Government through skilful negotiations may prevail on the unions to accept the argument about inability to pay. The unions have shown their maturity over and over in accepting restraint. They did this under the previous as well as this government. Even Prime Minister Golding and other members of his Cabinet have publicly recognised this fact of the responsible position adopted by the unions.

The contention of the unions seems to be 'is not what yuh do but how yuh do it'. The unions are seeing the prime minister's action as rejecting the route of genuine dialogue and instead embarking down a dangerous road to dictatorship. To them, he has chosen confrontation instead of consultation and that is not acceptable. The unconstitutional dismissal of the Public Service Commission last year, the continuation of people sitting in Parliament contrary to the Constitution and the unwillingness of the minister of labour to act in accordance with the Labour Relations Act to send disputes involving the National Solid Waste Management Authority to the Industrial Dispute Tribunal are evidence being advanced of the creeping dictatorial tendencies in this government.

Cabinet reshuffle

We can ignore these signs at our peril. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing because they are not public-sector workers or trade-union members.

When teachers were described as acting like 'extortionist', we said nothing because we were not teachers. When journalists are told it is not their business to ask about Cabinet reshuffle, we accepted this affront against transparency because we are not journalists. Naturally, when they come against some businesspeople, we will say nothing either because we are not businesspeople. So finally when they come for us, who will be there to protect the rest of us? Prime minister you are going down the wrong road. It is time to wheel and go back to the bargaining table avoid the slippery road to dictatorship.

Lambert Brown is president of the University and Allied Workers Union and can be contacted at Labpoyh@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.