By Arthur Dash

Copyright newsday

IN A PREVIOUS commentary, we highlighted the cautious optimism expressed by trade unions when the Prime Minister signalled an end to the widespread practice of contract employment in TT and in particular the public service.

While the private sector and even some government officials have often defended the practice on grounds of increased productivity, specialised service delivery, and cost savings, particularly in relation to pensions, the experiences of contract workers paint a very different picture.

In all the arguments advanced for the retention and even expansion of this practice, no thought is spared for the psychological and emotional well-being of the workers involved. In an era where job satisfaction has been acknowledged as a precursor to increased productivity, it is wise to consider the feelings and plight of the people whose rights are being infringed.

A prominent feature of this practice is the absence of provisions for recognised majority bargaining units to represent the rights and interests of employees. Contract employment has been closely tied to the decline of the trade union movement, not just locally but globally.

Workers tell stories of contracts not being renewed simply because they asserted their rights. Others describe being threatened with non-renewal if they spoke out against poor conditions. In some instances, management openly uses contract renewals as a weapon to silence dissent. This erosion of worker rights creates a culture of fear, leaving many unwilling to join unions or demand fair treatment.

Unlike permanent employees who earn pensions based on their years of service, contract workers are excluded from such arrangements. Instead, they are promised a gratuity at the end of each contract cycle.

In theory, this should serve as compensation for the absence of a pension. In reality, however, the situation is far from satisfactory. Many contract employees, teachers in particular, report waiting through multiple three-year cycles, sometimes up to nine years, before receiving a single gratuity payment. In Tobago, contract teachers were even forced to take the Tobago House of Assembly to court over non-payment.

What is particularly troubling is that, over the course of a career, pension benefits in permanent employment often accumulate to more than the sporadic and uncertain gratuity payments tied to contract work. Again, this is detrimental to the worker and exacerbates worker disillusionment and low morale, with lower productivity and engagement being probable outcomes. Career growth is also not an option for these officers, leading to feelings of stagnation.

The instability of short-term contracts, sometimes lasting just one year or even month-to-month, makes it nearly impossible for workers to plan their lives. Basic financial services such as home mortgages or vehicle loans are often out of reach because banks and other financial institutions view contract employment as transient and thus high-risk. They are acutely aware that the worker could be terminated at any time. Workers are forced to rely on spouses, friends, or family members to co-sign or secure loans.

Beyond the financial challenges, this constant insecurity takes a psychological toll, leaving many workers anxious about their future and their families’ well-being. Such employees often delay starting families on account of their tenuous employment status.

One of the justifications used for the proliferation of contract employment in the public service is that it allows for a parallel arrangement that bypasses what many politicians view as a very bureaucratic and inefficient public service.

This option is supposedly more agile and efficient than the traditional civil service and more responsive to the wishes of the government, especially when it is anxious to execute projects given its fixed terms in office. It argues that contract work enables faster hiring and improved public sector deliverables. However, critics contend that this claim has not been borne out in practice and oftentimes has instead facilitated corruption and malfeasance.

Instead of boosting efficiency, contract employment has been used as a cover for many elected leaders to bypass established accountability structures to engage in nepotism in the disguise of seeking efficiency.

Using the power of the public purse to hire and fire people at their political discretion is an irresistible aphrodisiac. With pensions diminishing, gratuities unreliable, and morale sinking, this practice risks eroding the very democratic foundations that drives national development.

If we are to chart a sustainable path forward, a serious rethinking of employment policy is needed consistent with ILO guidelines. Workers deserve more than uncertainty. They deserve fairness, stability, and recognition for the crucial role they play in sustaining the nation’s economy and public institutions.