Ansell Lanka conflict: Will another investor be lost?
Thursday, 7 November 2013 00:00
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By a Special Correspondent
At a time when the necessity for attracting foreign investment in to our country is more urgent than ever, it is everyone’s responsibility to protect the investors remaining in the country. However, it has been made clear through certain events taking place, that there are plots afoot to get rid of the investors currently within.
The worker crisis at Ansell Lanka seems to be intensifying with every passing day. There doesn’t seem to be any sign that an agreement will be reached. This could be the first instance where a Trade Union takes action based on a personal grudge.
Trade Unions should take action to solve problems affecting a majority of workers and not on behalf of personal issues of individuals; issues that they themselves ought to be dealing with. This is a violation of the laws and values of trade unionism. In addition, it also effectively destroys the mutual goodwill and relationship between the employer and employee.
Nevertheless, if the remaining investors decide to take their investments out of the country as a result of these short-sighted measures, the effect will be felt only by us and no one else. Thousands of innocent stakeholders will have to suffer simply because a handful of individuals are unable to comprehend the gravity of the situation, and there will be no one left to take responsibility. They will realise too late that the fall-out will affect them as well.
There is no point in trying to close the stable doors once the horse has bolted. Similarly certain individuals will only realise that it is too late, after the proverbial horse has bolted.
Foreign exchange earner
If we are to consider Ansell Lanka which was established as far back as 1989 and set up as a subsidiary of an Australian company engaged in the manufacture of protective materials used by those in the medical profession, such as rubber gloves.
Ansell Lanka brings over Rs. 15 billion each year in foreign currency and provides direct and indirect employment to tens of thousands of Sri Lankans. With all said and done, the beneficiaries need to proceed with right minded care. It is not right that those that have benefitted from the higher-than-average salaries paid by the company should behave in this manner.
It can be said without a modicum of doubt that this Australian company has always put the needs of its workers first. It is clearly evidenced by the number of staff that have been with the company for over 20 years, that this is an institution that has guaranteed a monthly wage, meals, transport, health and welfare for their employees. Hardly anyone would have remained in the same job for so long, if their needs were not met.
Already, the company has made a massive investment in this country. This investment, of over $ 100 million, is one that is earning one of the highest incomes per year for the country. Does it not seem a foolish act to destroy a relationship with the company that is prepared to invest a further $ 10 million in the 2013/14 fiscal year?
Leaving Sri Lanka wouldn’t be a massive blow to a company manufacturing export quality goods out of subsidiaries in approximately 20 countries including, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Mexico, and Australia. It wouldn’t be a significant loss for them to abandon their investments in our country, because the same grade of goods is being manufactured in a number of other countries.
Loss of FDIs
As a solution to the problem, they will take care to redirect their investments to another factory in another country and increase production to match what ours would have been. Consequently, we will be at a loss of options and not them.
At this moment, the conflict has been going on for three weeks. While workers are part of this action, it is doubtful whether they are aware of what the right thing to do is. The root of this strike is a personal conflict concerning only the leader of the trade union and one of the company’s oldest employees; and its resolution will be of no use to anyone else.
He cannot even produce a report proving that he has been dealt with unfairly, and hence he has taken this irresponsible course of action. By obstructing workers and retaining them by force, he has endangered the job security of a large number of employees.
Whether the strikers are aware that there is another group of people, waiting to profit from this situation is doubtful. While these people are ready to further agitate, it is not likely that they will care whether jobs are lost, or if a disappointed investor returns to his home country. Whether our workers are pretending to not understand the situation while understanding well the consequences, or whether they really are unaware and hence act in this manner, is something that needs to be investigated.
