Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] Heritage is not a publicly traded company, so how can shares be offered to employees? The share offering Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley referred to with FCB is different, in that FCB is traded on the stock exchange.
“Even if Heritage was a publicly traded company, there is no recognised majority union at the company so how could he propose such to the OWTU who do not represent the Heritage workers?”
In the following Letter to the Editor, National Workers Union (NWU) education and research editor Gerry Kangalee responds to a claim by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley as regards a stock offering to outgoing Petrotrin workers at the Heritage Petroleum Company:
(via OPM)
Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley says he was prepared to offer shares through an Employees Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) to the tune of 20% of the shares of Heritage to the ‘500 workers’ of Heritage. Ancel Roget, he said, refused the offer.
I am a bit confused. What shares is he talking about?
Heritage is not a publicly traded company, so how can shares be offered to employees? The share offering he referred to with FCB is different, in that FCB is traded on the stock exchange.
Even if Heritage was a publicly traded company, there is no recognised majority union at the company so how could he propose such to the OWTU who do not represent the Heritage workers?
The PM also claimed that Heritage has 500 workers. These are the workers who, I assume, the PM was referring to when he claimed that he made his proposal.
(via OWTU)
The truth is that Heritage hardly employs labour directly. When you see workers in a Heritage coverall, they are most likely employed with a contractor which supplies labour to the company and are paid rates way below what Petrotrin workers used to enjoy. These workers are referred to as contractor equivalents and include administrative and supervisory personnel.
These contractors include the Kenson Group, owned by Kenneth Ferguson, a former PNM mayor of San Fernando. The company’s website claims it provides ‘highly skilled services through our competent and experienced workforce’, which is just a fancy way of saying it is a labour supply contractor.
Other contractors include IAL Engineering Services, IOCL, and Well Services.
So who were these workers to whom the Prime Minister offered these non-existent shares? It seems the Prime Minister offered ghost shares to ghost workers.
Editor’s Note: According to a Trinidad Guardian report, an excerpt from a statement made by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley read: “[…] I as Prime Minister was prepared then to offer as much and to encourage the Cabinet to offer them up to 20 per cent of the new company.
“Had they accepted that offer, they would have been owners of 20 per cent of that $3.6 billion, but they had no faith, no confidence, and as a result of that, their leaders led them away…”
For some weeks this column had been focused on the good, the bad and the ugly of Carnival and its Read more
“[…] This feeling of always being uneducated influenced me when I became prime minister. There were always about 6,000 children Read more
“[…] Yes, Basdeo Panday was much kinder to certain individuals and organisations than PNM ever was or will be, but Read more
A New Year traditionally renews feelings of hope. Realism may dash hope so commentators feel pressured not to write gloomily Read more
“[…] The Caribbean has, since the 15th Century, been a region of imperial contest and a theatre for wars between Read more
My close friends are worried for the safety of commentators on violent crime. In my case, they firmly believe that Read more
As usual, a trade unionist talking out of ignorance. A company does not need to be a publicly traded company in order to issue shares to its employees via an employee profit-sharing plan.
Do these unionists seek expert advice on matters or do they just comment based on their limited understanding of an issue or rather, how only they can perceive it should work?
Most of the hardships that unionized workers face, unfortunately, are directly and indirectly a result of their blind following of these union leaders who have monumentally failed in executing their functions but have succeeded extremely in leeching off the dues of their members.