caswell

The Caswell Franklyn Column – A Limit on Wage Deductions

BU shares the Caswell Franklyn Nation newspaper column – he is the General Secretary of Unity Workers Union and BU Contributor.
Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

To my mind, Government’s primary duty is to protect its citizens, and as an employer, […]
it must be ever mindful of its primary duty.

[…]

To this end, Government should be a model employer that sets the example for all other employers to follow.

However, based on my experience, I can safely declare, without sensible contradiction, that Government finds itself among the worst employers in this country. In the area of protecting its citizens who are workers, it is not even doing a half-decent job.

Before the Minister of Labour seeks to contradict me by citing the Employment Rights Act as an example of Government putting in place comprehensive legislation to protect workers, she ought to be reminded that the act has significantly increased the workload of the already overburdened Labour Department, and Government has not seen it fit to increase the staff complement by one. In addition, the composition of the Employment Rights Tribunal does not give the impression that Government wants the tribunal to carry out its mandate with alacrity.

As a result of Government’s negligence in this regard, it has allowed private sector employers to further abuse workers. I have sat at meetings where employers would admit that they were wrong and liable to compensate a worker who had been unfairly dismissed, but would then offer as little as 60 per cent of the worker’s entitlement to settle the matter immediately.  They have been bold enough to suggest that if the worker rejected the reduced amount, they would allow the case to go to the Employment Rights Tribunal, where that process would most likely take two or three years before there is a decision.

That said, I would like to deal with an example of Government’s most shameful abuse of its own workers.

In the private sector, if a worker is indebted to the employer, in circumstances where the debt can be recovered from the employee’s wages, the employer is prevented, by Section 9 of the Protection Of Wages Act, from deducting an amount that would cause the total deductions to exceed one-third of the worker’s wages in that pay period. That act was passed in 1951 so that Barbados, as a colony of Britain, could conform to international best practice as set out in the 1949 Protection of Wages Convention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the convention explains why there is an upper limit on the amount that could be deducted. It states:

Wages shall be protected against attachment or assignment to the extent deemed necessary for the maintenance of the worker and his family.”

On the other hand, when a public servant is required to repay a debt to the Crown/Government from his wages, public service managers unilaterally decide how much would be deducted.  Sometimes workers go home with less than $100 per month, after the deduction is made. When it is pointed out to them that the deduction must not exceed one-third of the worker’s wages, in accordance with the Protection of Wages Act, they invariably say the act does not apply to the Crown. But is that really so?

Immediately after Independence, Barbados ratified 25 ILO conventions, including the 1949 Protection of Wages Convention. We need look no further than Article 2 to determine if the convention applies to public employees. Article 2, Paragraph 1 states:

This convention applies to all persons to whom wages are paid or payable.

I think that we can safely say that public servants are persons within the meaning of the convention. The only thing left to be determined is if the convention is in force in Barbados.  For that answer, public servants need to be grateful to Shanique Myrie.

At Paragraph 54 of the judgment in her case, the Caribbean Court of Justice ruled that the executive and judicial branches of the state must, if possible, give effect to the state’s treaty obligations.

In my view, the 1949 ILO convention and the 1951 Protection Of Wages Act did not originally apply to public employees, but they would apply after May 8, 1967, when our Government freely, and with eyes wide open, ratified the convention.

Government gives the illusion that it is protecting workers’ rights but actually the opposite obtains. We are even now hearing that they want to eliminate overtime pay for workers who earn as little as $250 per week.

Caswell Franklyn is the general secretary of Unity Workers’ Union and a social commentator. Email: caswellf@hotmail.com

Tags: , ,

55 Comments on “The Caswell Franklyn Column – A Limit on Wage Deductions”

  1. David November 15, 2015 at 6:49 AM #

    @Jeff

    It appears the Barbados Advocate did not publish your column online. Certainly not where it can be easily retrieved.

    Like

  2. David November 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM #

    @Caswell

    If one understands the thesis of your position then the obvious question is why are the unions not seeing the value in challenging the issue TOGETHER.

    Like

  3. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 7:35 AM #

    David

    There is no one in the unions, other than Unity, that delves into this type of research. I’m hoping that they would read my columns and get cracking now that they realise that there is a basic for doing so.

    Like

  4. David November 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM #

    @Caswell

    With respect, don’t rely on your column, call a meeting, invite Toni, Roslyn et al. Get cracking!

    Like

  5. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 7:44 AM #

    David

    It is not as easy as that. The major unions are committed to the destruction of Unity.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  6. caribbeantradelaw November 15, 2015 at 8:26 AM #

    Very informative article. The question is, what do we do now? Is this something we can address through the mechanism of the social partnership or would civil society have to lobby and raise awareness on this issue on its own?

    Like

  7. Jeff Cumberbatch November 15, 2015 at 8:37 AM #

    @ David, I will send you the column in a few.

    @ Caswell, You have raised a legal point of current topical significance in international law scholarship. That is, whether an unincorporated treaty [one whose provisions have not been enacted in local law] is nevertheless binding in a jurisdiction that has ratified it. Our system, being “dualist”, requires a local law to be enacted before the treaty provisions become binding here.

    Contrast this with the “monist” system in some civil law jurisdictions where the ratification of the treaty immediately makes it law in those jurisdictions. See for an enlightening discussion on those the case of AG v Boyce & Joseph in the Caribbean Court of Justice. Here Wit J, coming from Surinam,a civil law jurisdiction, regretted this difference.

    http://www.worldcourts.com/ccj/eng/decisions/2006.11.08_Attorney_General_v_Joseph.htm

    In recent years however, some dualist countries have held that where the treaty is a human rights treaty, it should, nonetheless, immediately become law. It might be arguable that there is little difference between labour rights and human rights so that a similar principle should apply. Government is of course relying on the point of interpretation that, unless it expressly states so, a statute does not bind the Crown. An interesting point.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. David November 15, 2015 at 8:42 AM #

    @Jeff

    Is there any entity in Barbados or elsewhere which monitors treaty obligations with the objective to exert tension on governments to enact into law? In other words – where is the accountability.

    Like

  9. Jeff Cumberbatch November 15, 2015 at 8:59 AM #

    David, When a treaty is ratified, if there is no similar existing law on the matter,there is an obligation on the executive to take it to the “most competent authority” (Parliament) for the enactment of a a statute that would enable the provisions of the treaty to take effect.

    This has obviously been honoured more in the breach than in the observance and, alas, we seem content to raise our hand at international gatherings and to accede to rights treaties…when we get back home, however, it is a different story. We brag that we are progressive because we have ratified the treaty and that is the end of it.

    Like

  10. David November 15, 2015 at 9:03 AM #

    Thanks Jeff, seem to recall this issue raising its head in the argument presented by QC Forde in the Myrie CCJ matter.

    Like

  11. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 9:11 AM #

    Jeff

    The Protection of Wages Act was passed in 1951 but it did not mirror the provisions of the convention. After, it was ratified in 1967, and as a result of pressure from the ILO, Government amended the act to bring it into compliance with the convention.

    I agree that the act does not say that it binds the Crown but I am relying on the statement at paragraph 54 of the Myrie judgment to the effect that the executive and judicial branches must, if possible, give effect to the country’s international treaty obligations.

    As a result, I am saying that it is entirely possible for the Government to conform to the convention in respect of public servants.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  12. Jeff Cumberbatch November 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM #

    Yes, David, but his argument was rejected, because the Myrie matter directly concerned the obligations of the State of Barbados in the international sphere and not the local. When a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on the ratifying state in international law.

    Like

  13. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM #

    David

    The CCJ effectively dismissed Roger Forde’s argument. If they didn’t, Myrie’s lawyers would not now be millionaires, in Bds dollars.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  14. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 9:17 AM #

    Jeff

    Whenever this convention was ratified, Government knew or ought to have known that it was only applicable in the local environment.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  15. Jeff Cumberbatch November 15, 2015 at 9:21 AM #

    Apologies, Caswell, I misread you as saying that the provision already applied.

    You are really arguing then that the state should fulfil its international obligations. I am afraid that you will have to stand in line. The most urgent one currently is the enactment of legislation to end capital punishment in accordance with the ratification of the American Human Rights Treaty.

    After that, it will require political pressure on the government to enact condign legislation in the area of protection of wages as you wish. David’s earlier point about the persuasiveness of a united labour front in this context is a sound one!

    Like

  16. David November 15, 2015 at 9:26 AM #

    @Caswell

    After that, it will require political pressure on the government to enact condign legislation in the area of protection of wages as you wish. David’s earlier point about the persuasiveness of a united labour front in this context is a sound one!

    To continue with the point regarding the universally accepted approach of strength in numbers when there is a common interest, this is the kernel of the reasoning that should motivate the respective union leaders to act in the interest of their members. Petty issues just therefore be jettisoned in such circumstances.

    Like

  17. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM #

    David

    I completely agree with you. I held out the olive branch when I went to their march, dealing with the BIDC issue, and addressed their meetings. After that they went back to their goal of the destruction of Unity.

    Also, I have a case against BWU where I am representing one of their former employees before the Employment Rights Tribunal, and that does not endear me to them.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  18. balance November 15, 2015 at 1:58 PM #

    In recent years however, some dualist countries have held that where the treaty is a human rights treaty, it should, nonetheless, immediately become law. It might be arguable that there is little difference between labour rights and human rights so that a similar principle should apply. Government is of course relying on the point of interpretation that, unless it expressly states so, a statute does not bind the Crown. An interesting point.


    Liked by 1 person
    It would be interesting to hear your definitive view on the matter. Is Caswell correct or not? Is government within its right not to adhere to conventions on to which they have signed and/or is Government right not to apply the provisions of the 1949 Protection of Wages Convention to 1951 Protection of Wages Act.

    Like

  19. Caswell Franklyn November 15, 2015 at 2:24 PM #

    In 1975 when the Protection of Wages Act was amended to bring it into conformity with the convention, Edwy Talma told the House that the act applied to all workers. The Opposition raised the point that it did not bind the Crown and Errol Barrow pointed out that the legislation applied to public workers.

    Also, every year the Government goes to Geneva and reports to the ILO that Barbados is compliant. Are we to believe that our Government, however constituted, is one big international LIAR.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Jeff Cumberbatch November 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM #

    @Balnce,

    i am only now seeing your query. You seem tto have missed my point @ 9:51am. While a state is bound international law by the coventions it has ratified, in our system this does not immediately create rights in an individual citizen. Caswell’s point is that Government should do the proper thing.There will be no definitive answer to the question he poses in the absence of a pronouncement from the CCJ

    Like

  21. TheObserver November 16, 2015 at 12:14 PM #

    @Caswell
    “Sometimes workers go home with less than $100 per month, after the deduction is made.”

    Two points: (1) It would take a very hard heart to give a worker who supports a family less than $100.00 per month, and (2) more importantly, it seems as if the worker borrowed more than he can repay. A kindhearted lender?

    Perhaps the rules for borrowing and lending can be written in such a way that a Santa Claus lender does not become the grinch at repayment.

    Like

  22. Caswell Franklyn November 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM #

    Jeff

    The passage below is taken from the Myrie judgment, paragraph 80 to be precise. To my mind the last sentence suggest that the courts must give effect the international treaties when interpreting domestic law. I think that the statement that you are asking for has already been made by the CCJ.
    Community law requires access to appropriate judicial review in a case of a denial of entry. It also requires that officials give reasons promptly and in writing for any such denial. Both provisions of domestic law mentioned above, section 23(1) and section 13(2)(b) respectively, appear inconsistent with Community law as set out in this judgment. Nevertheless, the inconsistency may in reality not exist. A violation of Community law is not so much caused by the existence of domestic laws that seemingly contradict it but by whether and how these laws are applied in practice. The Court observes in this respect that the domestic courts of Barbados, including this Court in its appellate jurisdiction, are constrained to interpret domestic laws so as, if possible, to render them consistent with international treaties such as the RTC.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  23. Caswell Franklyn November 16, 2015 at 12:39 PM #

    Observer

    This situation has nothing to do with borrowing. I am speaking about cases where public officers were on extended sick leave and were paid by their departments. Mind you, they did not and in some cases cannot claim NIS benefits. After years sometimes, the officer is informed that the the sick leave that the person had back then is granted on no pay or half pay, and that they would have to repay the salary that they received.

    These managers then unilaterally deduct how much they like from the person’s wages. I know of one case where the lady is left with $89.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  24. Gabriel November 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM #

    The present person who speaks as the governor of the Central Bank of Barbados is on record as confirming that Barbadians need to improve their productivity.There are countless workers in both the Public and Private sectors who routinely take sick leave as though it is a right rather than a privilege.In other words some workers see sick leave as a perk and every year they take that sick leave.Its these social misfits that should be self employed and unions can be relied upon to encourage the misfits to remain on the job as a right rather than a privilege.I am opposed to the present 4 weeks holiday instituted by the DLP.That is a tremendous expense to small companies.Two weeks is enough and anything over that should attract negotiation on an individual basis but the law should be 2 weeks.Now employers are saddled with an Employment Rights Act.And you politicians and unions wonder why the investment climate is zilch in Barbados?Do you think employers like red tape?Fools rush in……

    Like

  25. pieceuhderockyeahright November 16, 2015 at 6:57 PM #

    @ Caswell Franklyn

    I am wondering this.

    From what you are saying there are a number of matters where an employer has been unfairing an employee, EVEN WHERE Barbados claims to be signatory to a rule/treaty

    Every year the government of Barbados goes to the ILO and tells lies per their adherence to these Treaties etc.

    It would seem to the ole man that, while it might just be a paper win, submitting a package which contains instances where an employee’s rights have been denied under said treaties, might at least cause some embarrassment to the GoB.

    Jes help the ole man to understand if that, while “full of hot air and signifying nothing”, might not act as some type as a “compulsion” and force these vagabonds to do the right thing Mr. Franklyn

    After all them doan like you, nor you union, so what do you have to loose??

    Like

  26. Smooth Chocolate November 16, 2015 at 10:50 PM #

    i differ with Caswell on this one because i know personally of officers who do owe government for some reason or other and arrangements are made to repay the money following the public service act, i.e if $1,000 or less they repay that amount in 12 months etc and it goes according to the amount owed with the length of time to pay. of course some public servants might want to pay more or all one time but i do know that that not all public servants are made to feel that too much is being taken out for the repayment.

    Like

  27. Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 12:50 AM #

    Smooth Chocolate

    You know of some people who is said to owe the Government money for some reason or the other. In fact most of those persons really do not owe the Government anything but because of some misinterpretation of the General Orders at the level of the Personnel Administration Division (PAD), money is stolen from them. For example, there is no such thing in the General Orders called, “extension of sick leave without pay” but over the years hundreds of public officers were forced to pay back money that fell into that category.

    PAD has no authority to grant an extension of sick leave on anything other full pay.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  28. Dompey November 17, 2015 at 5:55 AM #

    @Smooth Chocolate

    You ought to know by now that Caswell Franklyn is a Big Bull Shitter? He infuses rare instances of governmental misconduct to give credence to his bullshit stories, but is reluctant to mention the manner in which some union employees utilizes the union to get over on government regularly.

    Like

  29. Bush Tea November 17, 2015 at 6:48 AM #

    @ Dompey
    You f&%$ing idiot …JA!

    Caswell is a UNION LEADER.
    That is what ‘union leaders’ do in our system…
    Just you you come on BU and bray …because that is what donkeys do…
    and Bushie comes here and wreck havoc …cause that is what whackers do…

    If we are foolish enough to allow the “CAN-DO” people like Caswell, Walter, ZR people, Bad-boys on the block etc to be on the ANTI-Establishment side, ….while relying of jackasses of your ilk (and froon, stinkliar, mottley etc ) to f&%$ up the system ….
    THEN WE DESERVE TO SUCK SALT.

    DISCLAIMER
    &%$ = rig🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Artaxerxes November 17, 2015 at 9:17 AM #

    @ Caswell

    I read in today’s Daily Nation that the NIS has a backlog of approximately 20,000 claims and ongoing delays in issuing NIS cheques.

    In my opinion this should be of some concern to the unions, since there will be situations where some employees would have “utilized” their certified/uncertified sick days and would have to rely on sickness benefits because employers are not required, by law, to pay employees that have exceeded the sick days as specified by the employer.

    I have a friend who, due a leg injury, has been on prolonged sick leave since February this year and has only received 2 sickness benefits. Whenever she calls the NIS to enquire about her sickness benefits, she is told it is being processed or the cheque is in the mail. One can imagine that bill arrears would be accumulating, and as such, there is not any sympathy from NIS to these people’s plight

    The unions should also look at this sick day law of 6 uncertified days per annum. According to NIS, there is no specific law that governs how many uncertified sick days an employer can give an employee each year, and the 6 sick days has taken precedence over a period of time.

    In the hotel industry employees were required to take their 6 uncertified sick days on “4 occasions,” (i.e. 2, 2, 1 and 1). In the event, for example, they took 2 in January, 1 in March, 1 in June and 1 in August, they would forfeit the remaining day.

    Like

  31. Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM #

    Artaxerxes

    NIS commissioned a new computer system without testing it in 2014. The system proved to be faulty and that is the reason why everything there is in a mess. They did the same thing in 2004 and it seems that nobody learned from that mistake. Unfortunately, the poor staff has to face the public and not the clown(s) that made the decision.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  32. David November 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM #

    @Caswell

    In the interest of ensuring accountability will anyone be fired?

    Like

  33. TheObserver November 17, 2015 at 5:51 PM #

    @Caswell
    Thanks for providing additional information. Being a little distant from the situation means that I take things information in a literal manner and do not always get the nuances. I can see that you attracted a few who would prefer to discard your information and attack you.

    I am wondering if this is a failure of the computer system or reflects bad processes or governance.

    Like

  34. Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 7:03 PM #

    The Observer

    It is a failure of basic English Comprehension on the part of the Chief Personnel Officer.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  35. Artaxerxes November 17, 2015 at 9:26 PM #

    @ Caswell

    One of the basic requirements in system analysis and design is those persons who are charged with the implementation of a new system should not immediately discard the old system.

    There should be a parallel “run” of both systems over a period of time so as to enable the system analyst to determine any “flaws” and make the necessary improvements to ensure the new system achieves the desired objectives.

    This is poor management.

    Like

  36. Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 9:50 PM #

    Artaxerxes

    But it happened twice in ten years and the only persons who suffered as a result were people who were relying on NIS for benefits.

    They initially bought the 2004 system for $9 million and it crashed immediately upon implementation. For the next few years, they were throwing good money after bad trying to fix the problems. After they spent in excess of $60 million trying to fix a $9 million system, they decided to buy a new system in 2014 and made the same mistake.

    >

    Like

  37. Gabriel November 17, 2015 at 10:17 PM #

    As far as I am informed,this was only made public thanks to Walter.I was thinking however that magistrate Graveney Bannister just complained about some 10,000 outstanding or unserved writs in the court system?All this reflects badly on the government of Barbados.

    Like

  38. Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 10:39 PM #

    Gabriel

    Bannister just wants noticing. He knows or ought to have known why the court documents are not being served. There are 30 vacancies in that department for marshals. If you do not have the personnel, how the hell are you going to get the documents served. There are 55 posts of Marshal ll on the Establishment. They are the ones who are the ones that serve the documents. How do you expect 25 people to do the work that should be done by 55 persons.

    >

    Like

  39. David November 18, 2015 at 4:13 AM #

    @Caswell

    Are you suggesting we need 55 Marshalls to do the work?

    Like

  40. pieceuhderockyeahright November 18, 2015 at 4:51 AM #

    @ Mr. Caswell Franklyn

    Your normal in depth information on the NIS system is understandably incorrect, not as such relates to the $9 million and the $60 million fix but more so what was being bought and “commissioned”

    Let me give you de ole man analogy and den tell you what my grandson, be one dat does wuk at *** bank, tell me.

    You evah dis was had meet a pretty woman who did was looking real good and when you get she in close quarters she jes lay dere? And ent move? When you was younger? Not when “Lazarus” in you pants can’t move, when you had movementations

    You remember when you elders used to tell you bout “buying a pig in a poke” and it come home to you whu Dem mean when you and dat pretty ting get in dat crunch? (I nearly say crutch)

    Me grandson tell me dat de pretty umman dat de NIS was did had was did call KPMG. Darcy Boyce was did used tuh wuk deah one time but KPMG introduce NIS tuh dis Lat Capital company in Florida and NIS den pay millions uh dollars tuh KPMG and Lat Capital fuh a system dat was really a training exercise fuh KPMG and Lat Capital dat past and present partners of KPMG and Lat Capital substantially benefitted from

    Computers is like dat pretty umman Caswell, dah is jes de outsides, de commissioned software is de insides dat does drive de umman hips and gyrations at a 22% licensing fee annually!! So even if de umman can’t wuk up Caswell you ingrunt self gone and married tuh she and contractually bound tuh paying she scvunt even if she can’t wuk up!

    I was trying to end up de story wid de lazarus in you pants but I cyan mek no real relationship udder dan tuh say dat Dem ent know de grimoire words in Aramaic fuh Lazarus come forth, nor do they know where to buy some Viagra, so all uh we paying fuh Dem finger grower remedies and gine continue paying till Justin Robinson get balls…

    I was did axe you a question earlier but you like you ignoring de ole man too

    Like

  41. Caswell Franklyn November 18, 2015 at 6:29 AM #

    David

    I am not suggesting anything. That is the number of posts that is set out in the Public Service Order for Marshal ll. When they had the full complement they were short of staff and were asking for more posts. The work has increased exponentially since then. In addition to serving documents, marshals must man the courts.

    There are only 12 or 13 left to serve documents on a daily basis to cover the whole island. Some districts do not have a single marshal to serve documents. As a result, only urgent application are served in those districts by marshals from other areas. Tell Bannister to stop misleading the country.

    >

    Like

  42. Bush Tea November 18, 2015 at 6:30 AM #

    @ Piece
    KPMG introduce NIS tuh dis Lat Capital company in Florida and NIS den pay millions uh dollars tuh KPMG and Lat Capital fuh a system dat was really a training exercise fuh KPMG and Lat Capital dat past and present partners of KPMG and Lat Capital substantially benefitted from
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What a coincidence …. Another “Lat(in) Capital” company doing dubious business with Bajan Brass bowls – and ending up with millions of dollars – while this country slides into poverty….

    Ask the grandson at the *** bank to check if there are any common links between this NIS computer scam and the ongoing BHL scam with a similar sounding ‘venture capital’ operation that ended up with a sweetheart deal with BHL shares …. please.!!

    ’bout here too sweet doh….

    Like

  43. David November 18, 2015 at 6:32 AM #

    @Caswell

    Are you suggesting that the Magistrate should not highlight the issue if by your admission there is a manpower problem? Who is responsible to fix the problem? The Home Affairs minister?

    Like

  44. Caswell Franklyn November 18, 2015 at 6:43 AM #

    The magistrate was blaming the marshals in circumstances where he ought to know better. He knows where the blame lies but the circumstances of his recruitment would not allow him to blame the Government. In any event, he cannot criticise the Government and be a civil servant. He needs to air his mouth so he does so on the marshals who can’t defend themselves.

    >

    Like

  45. David November 18, 2015 at 6:47 AM #

    @Caswell

    Have a different slant on it. The Magistrate puts pressure on the Marshalls and this triggers pressure by the Marshalls on their employer with the help of the union.

    Like

  46. Caswell Franklyn November 18, 2015 at 7:00 AM #

    Everyone from the PM down knows of this situations. When he was AG, he promised to fix it.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  47. David November 18, 2015 at 7:02 AM #

    It is about pressure to force those who know to prioritize.

    Like

  48. pieceuhderockyeahright November 18, 2015 at 9:19 PM #

    @ Bush Tea

    DE granson tell me dat de Latapital Solutions is http://www.latcapitalsolutions.com/contact.htm in Florida and is a SAP certified company the one that you are talking about is a financial company so de name coinciding is just a coincidence

    Like

  49. Bush Tea November 18, 2015 at 10:35 PM #

    Thanks Piece….
    de grand boy seems to be a chip off de madame’s block yuh…

    …but Bushie don’t believe in co-incidences…..
    Conspiracy theories are so much more FUN….🙂

    Somebody, in looking for a name for their venture capital scam, liked this ‘Lat Capital’ thingie …and voila …. Latin Capital it was…

    Now….let’s see…
    Who was around the NIS computer scam; had money to invest in Latin Capital; and carried the clout to influence BHL directors to borrow from LC ….and sign that Put agreement?

    …well …at least not stinking Bushie…!!!

    Like

  50. Caswell Franklyn November 18, 2015 at 11:07 PM #

    Bushie

    You are on to something. When the Columbians were supposed to be working on the NIS system, they were actually working at Banks Brewery instead. Don’t seem like a coincidence to me.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  51. Bush Tea November 19, 2015 at 7:15 AM #

    @ Caswell
    See why you are a special GEM now – when it comes to National Governance and the application of basic common sense to fairness and transparency…?

    @ Piece
    …another question for the grandson….
    Ask him to check the two websites:
    http://www.latcapitalsolutions.com/
    http://www.thelatincapitalgroup.com/

    …and advise us, in his considered opinion, the likelihood that the similarities are purely coincidental.

    It is walks like a duck…
    …has webbed feet
    Quacks…
    …and shiites STINK….

    it GOTTA be a duck.

    Like

  52. Smooth Chocolate November 20, 2015 at 11:06 PM #

    @ Caswell Franklyn November 17, 2015 at 12:50 AM #
    Smooth Chocolate

    “You know of some people who is said to owe the Government money for some reason or the other. In fact most of those persons really do not owe the Government anything but because of some misinterpretation of the General Orders at the level of the Personnel Administration Division (PAD)”

    i was speaking about situations i know of where the persons were given a cheque from the NIS for illness and still received regular pay. it was obvious they should have returned the cheque but did not, so they had to have the amount deducted. another case i was speaking of was when an officer damaged property belonging to govt and had to pay for it. all the monies was made to be repaid over period of time base on the public service act.

    Like

  53. David November 26, 2015 at 6:53 PM #

    Congrats Caswell, read the Nation article today where Unity and NUPW tagged on the manpower issue re Court Marshalls. The BWU was conspicuous by its absence.

    Like

  54. Caswell Franklyn November 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM #

    Thanks David. My concerns were originally published in the Saturday Sun. I was surprised to see today’s but I don’t mind.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. St.John Polyclinic, a Case of Political Corruption | Barbados Underground - November 21, 2015

    […] week  Caswell Franklyn column we discussed the challenge posed by government not ratifying (enacting in local law)  […]

    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: