The Tribune

PROMISES, promises. It’s election time, and that means that candidates are making their pledges to would-be voters in hopes of winning their support.

Last week, there was a striking – if short-lived – piece of news about a deal between the PLP and two umbrella trade unions. It turned out many unions hadn’t been consulted and the so-called deal came crashing down. But what was in that deal? At the time, the PLP didn’t say, but The Tribune received a copy and the contents were startling to say the least.

The PLP pledged, for example, to double the redundancy pay ceiling from 12 months to 24 months. That’s two years of redundancy pay ceiling – the PLP certainly hasn’t been vocal to employers about that detail. At a stroke, that would add a huge cost for employers – and possibly stifle new employment as businesses would have to look at the increased costs attached to senior workers before they could hire new staff.

That promise was signed by PLP leader Philip Davis and the party’s labour spokesman, Fred Mitchell, who is also the party chairman, so it goes right to the heart of the party’s plans for the future.

What else is in there? Well, the party also promised to support non-union members in a workplace having to pay service fees to the union to cover costs of collective bargaining agreements. Regulations were also promised “where necessary and possible” including “allowing for at least 16 hours of rest between shifts for each employee”, and redefining wages to include all income, including tips and gratuities.

Oh, and as a cherry on top, the heads of registered trade unions and their secretary generals would become Justices of the Peace, and the TUC and NCTUB would each get land to build headquarters upon.

Now some workers may be reading this and nodding eagerly, but be careful what you wish for – because with each of these promises there is a cost, and it may not be a cost that an employer, or indeed the country, can afford.

That promise to double redundancy payouts to two years for example – it is often noted that we have an overly large civil service. If a future government were to try to slim down the civil service, that would add a mammoth cost to the nation.

And if the country can’t afford it, that leaves two options – either bankrupt the nation carrying it out, or just not live up to the promise.

As Peter Goudie, of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation, said: “It’s silly season. They can promise anything they want. It doesn’t mean they’re going to deliver on it.”

As it happens, another party’s leaflet dropped through the letterbox recently – the Coalition of Independents – with one candidate promising free education, free healthcare, free water, free electricity, free internet, and a cheque of $100,000 every year to every Bahamian with a passport. Nonsense, of course. But that’s the thing people should beware of – anyone can make a promise, but make sure they show you what the cost is, how that will be paid and what the consequences will be – otherwise, you can expect to be disappointed.

Declarations

Kevin King is worth $53m. That’s what he says on his election forms. It’s an eye-catching sum indeed for the leader of the Kingdom Government Movement.

Alas, Mr King was unable to clarify to The Tribune details of his declarations, after we wanted to know more about his fortune given his income of $38,500. He said he would get back to us, but never did.

We would love to know more about his success, and his $35m of securities and $8m of real estate. We are sure it would be an inspiration to others to see how he has thrived despite his limited income and his former court conviction in 2002 for indecent assault and subsequent jail sentence.

One of the difficulties with the financial declarations, of course, is that it is self-reported and the Parliamentary Registration Department and Public Disclosure Commission have shrugged their shoulders and said it’s not up to them to check the data put forward by candidates.

So who is to check it? What’s to stop a candidate declaring that they own the moon and the stars with no one to contradict them? At present, nothing, it would seem. So do take things with a pinch of salt, unless the candidates are willing to prove it. Or better yet, if elected, to promise to make sure all the candidates have to prove their declarations.