March 10, 2003

Dear Sir,

I have no problem wearing a seat belt, in fact it should have been put into effect a long time ago, it might have saved at least one life.

What I object to, is allowing a full year before it becomes mandatory, especially as we have known for the past year that it would become law as of January 1. Can you imagine if a Magistrate handed down a fine to some road offender, and then said: "You have a year to pay"?

Although with the thousands of dollars outstanding in unpaid fines it is probably happening anyway.

Several years ago it became illegal to have dark tint on car windows, so why are there so many vehicles running around and you can't see inside? Are they ever pulled over? No, of course not, and then we wonder why this country is in the sad state it is.

When I come to an intersection I want to be able to see the other drivers face to ascertain what he/she is going to do, especially as very few drivers use their indicators.

February 20, 2003

Dear Sir,

I read with interest the comments (in a recent) paper made by Mr. Derrick Burgess of the BIU, regarding the opposition to unemployment insurance. Mr. Burgess states "It's not about the unions". I find this an interesting comment.

I think most people would agree with the fact that any unemployment insurance would be primarily for the benefit of seasonal workers, who are for the main part members of the BIU. Therefore, if they want to choose to protect their income in the event of a layoff, I wholeheartedly support that.

However, as someone who is not a seasonal worker, I realise that I too may one day face being unemployed, and I have for some time now taken the necessary steps to ensure that my financial obligations would be met in that eventuality.

I am not asking Government or anybody for that matter to help me; I am quite prepared to help myself. Like most working people, I have a very tight budget - I already have the mandated deductions from my salary for social insurance, health, payroll tax, pension etc. On top of that I have a mortgage and the related bills for that (land tax, insurance etc.).

I have a child to support, I have various life/disability insurances, I have a pension plan, I have my regular monthly bills, I have my savings - and the list goes on. I do not have any additional disposable income to pay into an unemployment insurance scheme.

So if given the choice of paying into an unemployment scheme or not, I would choose not.

The reason I find Mr. Burgess' comment of interest is that it has always been my understanding that unionised workers make a weekly contribution from their pay to the union. So what does the union do for them in the event of a layoff? Does this weekly contribution get them anything?

I would like to think that these same seasonal workers who are making their weekly contribution to the union are asking the same question. Instead of asking them to make yet another deduction from their pay cheque, they should be asking how their existing contributions are working for them.

For that matter, when was the last time that the union presented its audited accounts to their membership for their review? Just as the Government ensures that our pension providers produce quarterly statements to show how our individual contributions have been invested, or Social Insurance provided annual statements showing whether or not employers are making contributions, I think the BIU should be producing something for their workers to show them what exactly is being done with their money.

If this Government and BIU are truly interested in taking care of Bermuda's seasonal workers, which I would say are primarily the hospitality workers, then they would also need to address the ever touchy subject of our guest workers.

If a Bermudian worker is laid off during the slow season (say a housekeeper), and a guest worker is kept on (say a front desk staff), then maybe what Government, the BIU, the BHA and other hospitality affiliates should be doing is looking at a way to protect that housekeeper - maybe offer her the opportunity to train to work on the front desk, or other areas of the hotel where she can be employed during her main job's off season.

It's not like that would a novel concept! If there is going to be any form of seasonal worker in a hotel, it should always be a guest worker and absolutely not a Bermudian.

What is even more interesting to me is Mr. Burgess' last comment, that it is his dream that no one would need the assistance provided by an unemployment insurance.

Hmmm, if that's the case, what do you think Mr. Editor that Government will do with all this money? It's not like they are going to give it back to us. If we use the figures given in your article of a workforce of currently 37,000, say each of those workers makes a $10 weekly contribution, over 52 weeks... That's a grand total of $19,240,000.

Over $19 MILLION dollars! Even at a contribution of $5 per week, that's nearly $10 MILLION dollars! Annually! Into Government coffers! For an unemployment insurance that it is hoped will never be needed. It boggles the mind!