The Colonel’s Lady and Judy O’Grady

Mauritius Times – 70 Years

By Peter Ibbotson

According to Rudyard Kipling, these two ladies are “sisters under the skin”, despite their differing backgrounds. So, it is with employers — in a capitalist society, they are the same the world over, in the UK in Jamaica, in Mauritius, anywhere you care to name. Their interest is the maximisation of profits; if profits can be maximised by a policy of treating the employees kindly, then the employers will provide this, that and the other benefit in addition to the wages paid. But if maximisation of profits can come only by paying as little as possible in wages, then low wages will surely be the order of the day.

The estate owners in Mauritius belong to the second category of employers. They maximise their profits by paying as little as they can in wages. And unfortunately, the labourers’ unions are not yet strong to combat this policy of depressing wages.

Nor, thanks to the confusion caused by demagogues, and their propaganda, have we yet a national wages policy and Wages Boards for the sugar employees. Any application by the workers for higher pay tends to be dismissed out of hand by the estate owners, who claim always to be unable to pay more. Yet the annual reports of the income tax department show that the sugar estates are in a very healthy condition and can pour out millions of rupees annually to their fortunate shareholders! Some of those millions paid in dividends ought to be used to increase wages among the estate labourers first and the artisans second; and if the shareholders still expect their kilo of flesh, let the état-major suffer a cut in salaries and — more important – perquisites.

My reflections have been sparked off by reading in The Times of April 14 the statement of the Chairman of Tate & Lyle Investments Limited at the company’s annual general meeting in London the previous day. The statement referred to the Group’s trading activities, which are carried on in Jamaica, among other places. He said that a severe drought had affected the 1959 crop, and profits had suffered accordingly. In 1959, too, he said, “Unpleasant labour troubles were also experienced. These arose in connexion with the collective wages agreement between the unions and the Sugar Manufacturers’ Association to which we were a party. Selective strikes were called at seven out of the 20 estates. The issues were not, however, resolved and the outcome was the appointment by the Government of a Commission of Enquiry which was reported earlier this year.”

The Chairman, Sir Ian D. Lyle, then quoted part of the Commission’s report:

“While profits in 1958 and 1959 would not in themselves justify a wage increase, the Commission is of the opinion that the results for those years cannot be considered in isolation but should be weighed in conjunction with those of the preceding 17 years. When account is taken of the longer-term results and of the fact that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement guaranteeing the Negotiated Price Quota has been extended to December 31, 1967, it may be concluded that the unfavourable results of 1958 and 1959 will not continue. Considering these and related findings, the Commission has concluded the sugar workers are entitled to receive an increase.”

The increase recommended, which has been accepted by the unions and the employers, was for a 12½ percent, crop bonus for 1959, and a 12½ percent increase in all wage rates from the start of the 1960 crop. The additional cost to the West Indies Sugar Company (Tate & Lyle’s interest in Jamaica goes under that name) is £201,000 for 1959 (say, Rs 2½ million): and £275,000 (say, Rs 3½ million) in a full year. “It is,” said Sir lan Lyle, “a heavy bill to pay in a year of very poor results.”

This comment reveals the workings of the mind of the modern employer, the present-day entrepreneur. It shows only too well that employers everywhere are interested in one thing — their profits; and as long as their sacred cow is secure, the rest can go hang.

What is interesting, however, is the basis on which the Commission of Enquiry worked in assessing the ability of the sugar industry to bear higher wage rates. The Commission was not concerned with one year only and its financial result; it was not concerned with two years only; instead, it examined the profitability of the industry over the last 17 years, and its probable profitability over the next 7. On that basis — the profitability, real or estimated, of the industry over 24 years — did the Commission make its recommendation for an increase in wages. There is a lesson here for the Mauritius unions, and for all indeed who are striving to better the lot of the Mauritian worker and who are not prepared to be diverted from their task by enemies or so-called friends who play upon their weaknesses, be those weaknesses wine or women — or come, to that, song.

I hope that the Meade Commission will be able to unearth facts about the profitability of the estates. If not, the Government will have no option but to appoint an ad hoc commission of enquiry into the financial aspect of the Mauritius sugar industry with power to call for documents and to publish them. Up to date, there is too much secrecy shrouding the financial set-up of Mauritius basic industry: sugar.

*  *  *

Postscript to a Memorandum

I would have liked to have added some more to my memorandum for the Meade Commission. Perhaps someone may like to take up these suggestions in oral evidence: severe taxation of land which is either not utilised or underutilised; an arbitration tribunal to be set up to fix rents for sub-tenants of Crown Lands and to grant security of tenure; all tenants of Crown Lands to be asked for information as to what use they themselves make of their rented land, with a view to the more equitable granting of future leases.

7th Year – No 296
Friday 29th April, 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 February 2025