Jeff_column

The Jeff Cumberbatch Column –Party of the Year

BU shares the Jeff Cumberbatch Barbados Advocate column – Senior Lecturer in law at the University of the West Indies since 1983, a Columnist with the Barbados Advocate since 2000 and BU commenter – see full bio.

[…]

Jeff Cumberbatch - Columnist, Barbados Advocate

Jeff Cumberbatch – Columnist, Barbados Advocate

Musings: ‘Party of the year’
8/2/2015
By Jeff Cumberbatch
Of course, as my loyal and few but, nevertheless, exceedingly clever and attractive readers should have quickly surmised, the title of today’s essay has nothing to do with politics, and all to do with this being the last weekend of the annual Crop Over celebrations, where the popular emphasis is less on the “overing” of the crop itself and more about the carnival of it; a word whose origins, I am instructed, lie in the Latin for “farewell to the flesh” which is at once intriguingly ironic, given what tomorrow’s street parade portends.
Consequently, I must express my regrets to those who might have been attracted to this column by the title and its faint promise of a salaciously comparative assessment of the policies and members of the two major local political/electoral groupings and, at the same time, my appreciation to Mr Edwin Yearwood for having first coined the title of today’s effort as his
winning piece in Last Sunday’s Party Monarch competition.

I am mindful that I had promised last week to continue discussion of some of the legal issues relating to the recent spate of industrial dislocation in the quango and state sector, but there will be time enough to return to these in future.

And I think that there are few who could be bothered on a weekend such as this to digest the quiddities of the law relating to employment relations in a jurisdiction that is gingerly balanced, at present, between nostalgic loyalty to a seemingly-inadequate-for-these-times voluntarist tradition of industrial relations and a more modern commitment to a juridical construct where matters are conclusively determined by the judicial interpretation of enacted legislation.

Hence, this week’s effort is more in the nature of a generic “fireside chat”, with no single theme but the rambling thought patterns of a so-called legal scholar with a contractual commitment to the better Sunday publication in Barbados and a rare hour or so on his hands this (Saturday) morning into afternoon.

Amend the ERA? Seriously?
Not for the first time since its enactment in 2012, there have been newspaper reports of an official intention to amend the Employment Rights Act. Unhelpfully, these reports never venture into the specific failings of the statute in its current form or the precise proposed amendments.

It may be hazarded only that some influential party to the employment relation finds something in the legislation elementally unaccommodating to its immediate interests.

Not that the Act is perfect in all its provision. To mention a few failings, its exceptional perpetuation of the notion that the natural expiry of a fixed term contract constitutes a form of dismissal requires further explanation; the creation of a parallel concept of wrongful dismissal with its own new terms, forms of recourse and mode of redress unnecessarily blurs a formerly plain employment right; the right to priority in rehiring could do with some tightening of its procedures and there are more drafting infelicities than one.

Nonetheless, these sentiments are entirely personal and have not been pronounced upon definitively by the Employment Rights Tribunal itself or, indeed, by any appeal court. Further, the amendment of a statute so soon after its enactment and with scarcely any judicial or scholarly analysis of it smacks of an unbecoming panic and a rushed agenda on the part of someone or other.

Might it be the employers who may have wanted to restructure the employment contracts of their workers under the guise of providing the written statement of particulars but were stymied by the clear words of the provision that such a statement needed to be issued only where an employment contract was being contemplated and not where one already existed?

Could it have been the workers’ organisations that, under the Act, are now destined to play mainly a derivative, rather than primary role in the resolution of disputes involving the legality of the termination of a worker’s employment [except in cases of the redundancy of a significant number of them], or other contravention of his or her statutory rights?

Or is it the state apparatus that is clearly straining at the leash, if you will forgive the expression, to play an even more significant role in industrial relations disputes other than merely through the administrative auspices of the office of the Chief Labour Officer.

It does seem as if, similar to M. Jourdain in Moliere’s “Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme” the legislature “spoke prose without knowing it” by enacting the statute in a form that it so quickly needs to change. As it is so often put in these scenarios…film at eleven!

Reformation of the Social Partnership
A report in another section of today’s printed press hints at a probable extension of the membership of the existing Social Partnership.

According to the Prime Minister, “There are many other social groups, like the church, the co-operative movement and NGOs that have been knocking on the door, wanting to become members of the Social Partnership. It has been a closed shop and the stage is going to be have to be reached when we look back at its composition to see how best we can make it more inclusive so that the national discourse is broadened on issues that touch and concern people across the society…”

In language slightly reminiscent of his recent comment on the conduct of the union executive in the BIDC/NUPW industrial dispute by reference to the Biblical allegory of “new wine in old wineskins”, Mr Stuart was seemingly more appreciative of the value of a new dispensation this time around – “If we are going to move to a new platform, we cannot do so within old arrangements…Institutions are not a static and we have to respond to change…”

Arguably, as to which grouping should constitute the extension to the membership of the local Social partnership is a matter that ought to be determined by the people themselves, rather than by the dominant party to that very arrangement. One may therefore assume that the Prime Minister is impliedly inviting a national conversation on the reformed composition of the Partnership.

Limitations of space do not permit any extensive analysis of this matter today, but on the basis of the sector’s interest in societal and economic arrangements and the relevance of its likely contribution to the discussion, I would be prepared to argue for the priority of the inclusion of the consumer sector as it is defined in the relevant statutes over that of the Church, as controversial as this might appear.

Postscript
I extend sincerest sentiments of condolence to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr Gilmore Rocheford who recently shuffled off this mortal coil. Although my senior by quite a number of years, Mr Rocheford was nevertheless unfailingly kind to me whenever our paths crossed in earlier years. He was a great teacher who marked well. May he rest in peace.
I also wish an enjoyable day on what was last year’s Bacchanal Road to all of you readers who may participate in tomorrow’s revelry.

Tags: , ,

40 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column –Party of the Year”

  1. Caswell Franklyn August 1, 2015 at 10:04 PM #

    its exceptional perpetuation of the notion that the natural expiry of a fixed term contract constitutes a form of dismissal requires further explanation.

    Jeff

    I beg to differ that statement does not require further explanation. That identical provision, using the same words can be found at section 26 of the 2012 Employment Rights Act and at section 16 of the 1971 Severance Payments Act. Unfortunately, legal scholars and a lazy court misinterpreted it out of the law.

    You must appreciate the history to understand why the termination of a fixed term contract was considered dismissal. In 1971, government foresaw a situation where employers would place workers on fixed term contracts and avoid paying compensation if the contract or a series of contracts is terminated after 104 weeks. Other employees would have been entitled to severance pay or compensation for unfair dismissal if their jobs were terminated after 104 weeks.

    Provisions already existed in the General Orders for the Public Service for persons who were employed on fixed term contracts for a year or more to receive 20% of their salary as a gratuity. The government was only trying to level the playing field. All workers were supposed to be given similar treatment, whether private or public.

    The local courts did not distinguish between the English Redundancy Payments Act and what was intended in the Severance Payments Act. They fail to recognise that our act did not speak solely to redundancy. To this day, the Severance Payments Act is still being misinterpreted to the detriment of workers. Section 26 of the ERA restored what was intended by section 16 of the Severance Payments Act. So Jeff leave it alone if you do not understand the social intent of the legislation.

    Like

  2. David August 2, 2015 at 2:08 AM #

    Classic wins the 2015 Pic o de Crop title.

    Like

  3. Jeff Cumberbatch August 2, 2015 at 4:54 AM #

    Caswell,

    I am aware that the identical provision is contained in the Severance Payments Act. That is why I used the word “perpetuation”.

    And it is “exceptional” because (i) it goes contrary to the common law notion that the expiry of a fixed term contract brings the contract to an end automatically without the need for either party to do anything further and (ii) because a similar provision is to be found nowhere else in the region, except Jamaica where, as was the case in the English Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 197, it is possible for the employee in writing to opt out of the expiry of the fixed term contract being treated as a dismissal. But even England, where I suspect that we copied it from, has now repealed this provision.

    Even if I accept your rationalization of why the Government did what it did, it was a clumsy way to protect the worker. Why not simply provide, as Montserrat does, that the use of fixed term contracts to avoid the intent of the legislation is ineffective because the series of fixed term contracts would be treated by law as one continuous period of employment?

    In any case, even if the expiry of a fixed term contract is to be treated as a dismissal, that is only half the job done. The worker still has to establish that he or she was continuously employed for the required period and that the dismissal was for redundancy, if he or she is claiming a severance payment.

    While s. 38(2) of the Severance Payments Act might assist him or her in this regard, please note that this is still only at the level of a rebuttable presumption and not a conclusive inference.

    Note further that there is no equivalent provision in the ERA that creates a presumption that the dismissal was unfair. So that the “effect” of the two similar provisions is not at all identical. I see no social intent in that later provision since one would have to be employed continuously for a year anyway in order to make a claim for unfair dismissal.

    Enjoy the weekend!

    Like

  4. Jeff Cumberbatch August 2, 2015 at 4:57 AM #

    *To correct an error in my column this week. Mr Edwin Yearwood won the Sweet Soca Competition and not the Party Monarch title that was earned by Peter Ram. Apologies.

    Like

  5. Caswell Franklyn August 2, 2015 at 7:21 AM #

    The worker still has to establish that he or she was continuously employed for the required period and that the dismissal was for redundancy, if he or she is claiming a severance payment.

    Jeff

    The Act is not a redundancy payments act. It is a severance a payments act. All that was necessary before the Courts misinterpreted section 16 was that you had to prove that you were let go through no fault of your own. Severance is not equalled to redundancy. Severance means that you were let go. Redundancy suggest that the job no longer exists for whatever reason.

    I repeat that we do not have a redundancy payments act. Why would the Severance Payments Act provide a formula to compute compensation for wrongful dismissal if the act was dealing with redundancy only? Section 45 of the Severance Payments Act provides the calculation for wrongful dismissal.

    Section 16 of the Severance Payments Act starts out by saying, “For the purposes of this Act…” The expiration of a fixed term contract might not amount to dismissal anywhere else, but for the purposes of the Severance Payments Act it does.

    The long title of the act states: “An Act to provide for the making by employers of severance payments to employees who cease to be employed in circumstances amounting to redundancy and for related matters.”

    The “related matters” is wrongful dismissal. The long title would have stopped at redundancy if the act was intended for redundancy only. I know it is hard for scholars, who have done the wrong thing for years, to accept that they have been in error for so long especially when that error had been pointed out by an unlettered person like me.

    >

    Like

  6. Jeff Cumberbatch August 2, 2015 at 8:18 AM #

    Caswell,

    Have you looked at the circumstances when one is entitled to a severance payment? Do these not amount to situations of redundancy? The draftsman confused the words “severance” and “redundancy” that is all, as you should be able to deduce from the long title to the Act that you quoted-

    “…to provide for the making by employers of severance payments to employees who cease to be employed IN CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO REDUNDANCY…” [My emphasis]

    Note, not when they are severed from employment, but when they are severed for redundancy purposes. The other regional jurisdictions, for example Guyana, are much clearer on the true distinction between the two concepts in their statutes.

    The “related matters” are not necessarily the damages for wrongful dismissal section only, but rather also matters such as the disentitlement of employees to severance payments; the time for making these payments; presumptions; the method of enforcing the right etc.

    Section 45 was not part of the original Act, it was created to augment the plainly insufficient damages available to a wrongfully dismissed employee at common law. Since these were now to be calculated by direct reference to the severance payment that would have been payable to an employee who had been made redundant, the Act was as good a place as any to put it.

    Incidentally, what establishes that scholars “have done the wrong thing for years…” and “been in error for so long” other than your own assertions to that effect?

    Like

  7. Caswell Franklyn August 2, 2015 at 8:45 AM #

    If I am wrong, please explain the effect of section 16.

    Section 45 of the Severance Payments Act was enacted in 1972 to clarify that the Act was not solely speaking to redundancy. The idea behind section 16 was to pay compensation to people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It created conditions similar to those that existed for public servants who were employed on contract. Public servants who are employed on contract are paid 20% of their salary on satisfactory completion of the contract. Section 16 intended to do the same for private sector workers who were in the same position. But unfortunately, scholars and the courts defied the intention of parliament by misinterpreting the act as though they were reading the English Redundancy Payments Act that was in force then.

    You would see that my assertion is correct if you go back and interpret section 16 without a mind that is clouded by any preconceived notions of redundancy.

    >

    Like

  8. Bush Tea August 2, 2015 at 9:40 AM #

    @ Jeff
    As Man….
    The quality of your output of lawyers from Cave Hill would be SIGNIFICANTLY improved if you could invite people like Caswell, Mohammad Nassar, and a few other so-called “radical thinkers’ to be guest lecturers in their final year.
    These guest lecturers would be specifically invited to challenge the bland, predictable thinking that permeates the typical UWI law graduate….and perhaps their ability to face up to tried and tested ‘grey hairs’ such as Caswell’s and “Mahama-nama’s” would be a clear sign of their value to society….

    Unfortunately this may well identify 90% of your graduates as being condemned to ‘Froondom’

    Like

  9. David August 2, 2015 at 10:04 AM #

    @Jeff & Caswell

    Have to say the BU household is enjoying the butting of minds (heads) between you two; the unlettered Caswell and the heavily credentialed Jeff.

    Like

  10. Caswell Franklyn August 2, 2015 at 10:20 AM #

    David

    You must admit that Jeff lost, LOL!

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  11. David August 2, 2015 at 10:23 AM #

    @Caswell

    Such exchanges are good for learning and never should be viewed through a prism defined by win or lose.

    Like

  12. Caswell Franklyn August 2, 2015 at 10:28 AM #

    I know David: I was just having fun, hence the LOL. I have the highest regard for Jeff and his scholarship. Sometimes though, I disagree but that does not in any way diminish him in my eyes. Hell, I like Freundel who is always wrong nowadays but that does not mean that I don’t like him anymore.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  13. Gabriel August 2, 2015 at 12:25 PM #

    Those of us who value and admire reasoned and informed exchanges and opinions on pronouncements temporal are indebted to the ‘combatants’.Respect due.
    David,can the Hoyos File be included on BU?

    Like

  14. David August 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM #

    @Gabriel

    Thanks for the suggestion, if Hoyos is willing to defend points made in his articles on BU sure. We have Jeff, Adrian and Caswell who all defend their articles and are BU contributors.

    Like

  15. de Ingrut Word August 2, 2015 at 3:08 PM #

    Actually David, although having his defense would be great, Hoyos’ articles in the last four weeks definitely, but even beyond that, have been very powerful as Gabriel alluded to.

    He has affirmed many comments also made here in his articles but has also added some solid additional info which make his articles fertile ground for debate here; even without his further feedback.

    I too would be interested in seeing them here. His piece this week ‘ At sea in a leaky canoe’ was again a one-two powerful combination to Stuart’s head.

    According to the comments section to his article he is seen as a rabid BLPite though so adding his comments to your blog would definitely sink you further as a subversive. LOL.

    Like

  16. David August 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM #

    On a related note interesting the fireworks displayed in Madame Justice Cornelius court last week when the BIDC versus the employees forced to retire. Michael Carrington, a DLP lawyer combatting with Gregory Nichols, a BLP lawyer. Based on newspaper report the two had to be reminded of the bigger issues and stop the nit-picking.

    Like

  17. Gabriel August 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM #

    Michael Yearwood was the DLP gladiator.I think the judge correctly reminded them that the issue was about the future of actual people.

    Like

  18. David August 5, 2015 at 8:18 PM #

    @Caswell

    Why not attend the meeting and if the MoF stepped out of line walk out? Instead you tell him to piss off?

    Like

  19. Caswell Franklyn August 5, 2015 at 9:14 PM #

    David

    I made it quite clear from inception that I would not be attending any meetings with a minister of government to discuss appointments in the Public Service. The Minister is out of place and would be acting in defiance of the Constitution. I am firmly of the view that you can’t do the right thing the wrong way.

    The Prime Minister insisted that the unions follow the process set out in the Protocol, which was only a gentleman’s agreement. I am insisting that Minister Sinckler follow the Constitution of Barbados, the supreme law of the land.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  20. Hants August 5, 2015 at 9:58 PM #

    “Parties pleased with latest Customs talks”

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/70729/parties-pleased-customs-talks

    Like

  21. David August 5, 2015 at 10:11 PM #

    @Caswell

    Where does this leave the people you represent?

    Like

  22. Caswell Franklyn August 5, 2015 at 11:36 PM #

    David

    While those talks were going on today seven customs officers joined Unity Workers Union.

    The two unions involved in the talks with the Government appear to be representing Government more so than the workers at Customs. The Officers that Unity represents are seeking appointments, not entry to the BRA. Our members are entitled to be appointed permanently in the Public Service, not at some bastardised entity controlled by a minister of Government. They will get their appointments or else.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  23. ac August 6, 2015 at 5:30 AM #

    that is why NOBODY would take YOU (Caswell) seriously cause you like to quarrel and argue ,You are not a negotiator.
    Maybe one day you might learn how to practice the art of negotiation. that is if you stop listening to the back slappers like bush s,hit who continues to swell your head with tom foolery.
    Yesterday govt and union once again came to agreements that are in the best interest of country ,but for you the only solution would be to stagnate and decimate until barbados is brought to its knees,
    Glad to hear Chris Sinckler dismiss your efforts as futile.

    Like

  24. balance August 6, 2015 at 5:39 AM #

    “Yesterday govt and union once again came to agreements that are in the best interest of country ,but for you the only solution would be to stagnate and decimate until barbados is brought to its knees,”

    Just because there are no threats of industrial action looming on the horizon people like you would say that that snotty agreements are in the interest of the workers but wait and see

    Like

  25. balance August 6, 2015 at 5:40 AM #

    Ac I should have said ‘choke and rob’ agreements

    Like

  26. David August 6, 2015 at 5:45 AM #

    What has been reported is that discussions have started and some progress made. To quote Toni Moore it will take weeks of further discussion to finalize outstanding issues.

    Like

  27. ac August 6, 2015 at 6:34 AM #

    thats ok! but at least there is a semblance of quiet and not chaos and disorder that upsurge and disrupt the governance of a country.
    It seems like what die hards would rather see a return to the days of riots and upheaval which was formidable in its correctiveness ,However that mold use to circumvent issues are no longer indicative to issues pertaining to currant employer employee disputes it comes down to a reality of using a prescription of diplomacy rather than a hard core activism of destructiveness

    Like

  28. David August 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM #

    The NUPW and BWU must signoff on a good deal because Unity Workers Union is waiting in the wings. If Caswell gets up to over a 100 members he has the clout he needs to act alone.

    Like

  29. Bush Tea August 6, 2015 at 7:08 AM #

    Caswell is in a funny position.
    How does one go by the rules when operating in an environment of idiocy where everyone just does what seems like the best thing in the circumstances.
    The young union leaders are understandably impressed that the minister has agreed to ‘talk’ to them and apparently willing to offer ‘concessions’.
    What they have yet to learn apparently, is that the minister is a damn liar who does NOT keep promises and who only talk for political expediency.

    As Caswell says, THERE IS A PRESCRIBED PROCESS which is driven by professional public servants …who are bound by the ESTABLISHED rules to honour any agreements made.

    It is really quite idiotic to waste time talking with a minister who has broken EVERY public commitment that he has made to date.
    Shiite man!!! he said that the VAT would be for 18 months or some such shiite…. so if he now promise that the Customs Officers will be ‘treated fairly’ why would anyone believe THAT..?

    Caswell is right…and eventually the other Customs Officers will come to see this…..

    Besides, Stinkliar seems to be advised by AC ….a duplicitous jackass if ever there was one…

    Like

  30. Artaxerxes August 6, 2015 at 7:14 AM #

    The language structure and correct usage of metaphors……. this particular AC is either a writer or journalist. There are blatant similarities between how Irene writes and speaks and this AC’s contributions.

    Like

  31. de Ingrunt Word August 6, 2015 at 7:32 AM #

    Artax, you do love the AC don’t you! LOLL.

    The other day I was of the view that the Garner side of the AC menage is the sane, well scripted one so I agree with you above.

    Unfortunately to say that it evokes the counter-balance that the crude, illogical, often mind-numbingly ridiculous remarks are possibly the Pilgrim side.

    Oh lawd, like you I also find the AC interesting so all good!

    Like

  32. David August 6, 2015 at 7:50 AM #

    @Caswell

    Please explain: it reported the BWU and NUPW have agreed to their members transferring to the BRA. What was the fuss about then?

    Like

  33. ac August 6, 2015 at 8:08 AM #

    The process has begun .just let it work as was seen by the past industrial action nothing of substance was accomplished in that all parties concluded that meeting of the minds was an essential and acceptable way of process to progress
    No one wants to or wish unfair practices but however when a call for policies to be underscore those practices should be placed within a framework of sanity and view under a microscope of a democractic lense

    Like

  34. Artaxerxes August 6, 2015 at 8:12 AM #

    De Word………. “the Pilgrim side????”……. hahahahaha, I like that.

    It’s not that I love the ACs, it amazes me how, in trying to defend the indefensible, even when it is clear the odds are not in their favour, they seek to convolute the issue.

    Take the CAHILL issue for example, although contributors admitted we must explore alternatives to landfills, they have basically accepted the idea of a WTE facility. The lack of transparency, if Cowan and CAHILL are reputable, how a WTE plant would affect the environment, the environmental minister and government’s refusal to take Barbadians into their confidence and engage them on this issue, are just a few of the concerns Barbadians have been expressing, and rightfully so, about this matter.

    Rather than examine these concerns, the ACs choose to take the discussion along a biased DLP line, accusing concerned citizens of being politically motivated by the BLP and unpatriotic and don’t want a WTE plant, while making the discussion complex and difficult to follow.

    In their opinion, if the DLP says so, we must accept it…. no questions asked. If not, you are a BLP and unpatriotic.

    Like

  35. Bush Tea August 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM #

    @ Artax
    “….In their opinion, if the DLP says so, we must accept it…. no questions asked…”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Have you not just defined a typical jackass to the ‘T’?

    If the current rider says to turn left, you turn left…’If the current rider says stop ….you stop.
    When you get mounted by yet another rider after next elections, …same shiite, different rider. It also helps when blinders are used so that the jackass can only see the direction in which it is aimed…

    But you know what…?
    Jackasses have a role to play in this world. THEY carry the heavy burden. They take the strain. …and THEY take the beatings. It is also useful that they are not particularly smart…

    When harnessed together …as with the AC bunch here on BU, they can carry even heavier loads and take even more licks…. God bless jackasses…

    Like

  36. David August 6, 2015 at 8:31 AM #

    BU notes Sinckler ‘s terse response as is normal to a question about his role in the BRA NUPW BWU matter. Always so abrasive.

    Question : who has noticed the local media now referring to Sinckler as a facilitator? To borrow a phrase, o shiiirte!

    Like

  37. ac August 6, 2015 at 9:33 AM #

    The odds should be put in favour of country which is tangible and tantamount to first finding solutions. Although all might not agree on the patchway , a factor which mitigates and legislates a cure for the system would indeed within time be sufficient to hold all parties to accountability

    Like

  38. Artaxerxes August 6, 2015 at 11:11 AM #

    “The odds should be put in favour of country which is tangible and tantamount to first finding solutions.” Yes, I totally agree. But the government only has itself to blame for the current industrial climate in Barbados.

    This administration promised NOT to send home workers, and 8 days after Sinckler announced the government was going to retrench public sector employees in 2014, over 300 employees of the Drainage Unit received separation letters (December 31, 2013).

    The unions remained silent while the government opened the seals of destruction upon the populace, since (according to Classic) “all ah DEM were in bed together.”
    Now the unions have decided “enough is enough,” the imbecile we have for a PM, waxing Biblical about “old wine and new wine skins.” Supporters following suit talking shiite.

    The same way this administration said the public sector is too large, many of us feel the cabinet is TOO LARGE as well..

    Why should losers like Irene Sandiford-Garner, Esther Byer, Patrick Todd, Harcourt Husbands, Jeptar Ince, and Haynesley Benn, after contesting the last elections and failing to “win a seat,” be allowed to continue benefiting from the treasury, while those Beautify Barbados employees, who were retrenched over one year ago, ARE YET TO RECEIVE THEIR SEVERNACE PAYMENTS?

    SOLUTION: Put the odds “in favour of country” and RETRENCH these losers as well.

    Like

  39. ac August 6, 2015 at 12:43 PM #

    Hey bro that is now water over the bridge take a recent look at the unemployment figures which boast well for a country now on the verge of recovery.

    Like

  40. Artaxerxes August 7, 2015 at 9:21 AM #

    So far, for 2015, Barbados’ unemployment rate was recorded at 11.5%. For an island with a population of just under 300,000 people, a rate of 11.5% is still relatively high.

    What is interesting is that many people, including the ACs, have doubts about the accuracy of opinion polls, especially those conducted by CADRES and Peter Wickham. Ironically, unemployment statistics are compiled in a similar manner.

    Speaking of unemployment rate, I perused the Barbados Statistical Service web-site and was unable to find any information pertaining to this rate for the second quarter.

    So, if you are privy to such information, in absence of that produced by the BSS, I would have to question the accuracy of your figures.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: