Why workers feel betrayed

September 6, 2010

Dear Sir,

I am not a construction worker but it was with a sense of relief that I read the letter from William Smith (The Royal Gazette, September 2) because I have found the situation both depressing and frustrating. I have been around long enough to remember when uneducated black men who had acquired construction skills were among the more prosperous individuals in the black community and in the teachers' struggle for improved conditions they would often point out that uneducated construction workers were better paid than were some of the university educated teachers.

I have found it frustrating but not surprising at the deliberate and calculated effort that has frozen black men out of an industry which they had found so profitable and rewarding. From the moment of Emancipation that has been the policy. Throughout the 1840s the oligarchy attempted to bring in Europeans so that they would not have to pay wages to their newly freed slaves whose labour they had had for so long and so recently. They were to pay for their resettlement. They were not actually successful until 1849 when they were able to bring Portuguese, despite the strong but futile protests of black men. (cf. Heritage by Dr. Kenneth Robinson) These Portuguese may have been uneducated peasants but they were white. That was what counted. They may also have faced a measure of discrimination but there was a time when young Portuguese girls from Dellwood would be hired as sales clerks even though, by their own confession they sometimes had difficulty with the math when young girls from the Berkeley Institute with Cambridge school certificates would not be.

I am also old enough to remember when the oligarchy imported Europeans to displace Blacks in the hotels because they were being too successful. So although frustrating, it was not surprising when a financial policy was adopted that was successful in squeezing blacks out of the construction industry. Too many blacks were too successful. But what is very surprising that for a decade the PLP Government has continued and reinforced the policy. And when one hears taxi drivers complain that the Government buses are competing with them for their livelihood, I understand why so many workers feel that they have been betrayed by those for whom they voted.

EVA N. HODGSON

Hamilton Parish

We are to blame

September 3, 2010

Dear Sir,

Three storms are going past Bermuda with Fiona said to be the closest. And a fourth one said to be coming as well? The reason? In my opinion, fewer trees and more buildings (lots more). The same kind that have more concrete than shade to cool the country. The result? hurricanes & tropical storms love heat (the hotter the area, the more they move into it although Danielle/Earl never touched us). Nevertheless, a storm will hit us and will make an impact. We can only blame ourselves just as much as the different governments worldwide. And it will get worse ...

SUMTHIN2THINKBOUT

Devonshire

A good laugh

September 2, 2010

Dear Sir,

Today's letter from Morty Fide of Warwick pointing out a misspelling in a Bermuda College ad reminds me of an announcement I saw earlier this year. The public were invited to attend a gala evening where three local entertainers were being introduced into the Bermuda Musicians' Hall of Fame or something similar. I had a good laugh at that.

PAMELA H. WILLCOCKS

Smith's parish

Just another fool?

September 7, 2010

Dear Sir,

I recently returned home from two weeks in Europe and was greeted by the customary abundance of bills in my mailbox. As I began to sift through them, one caught my eye Digicel. You see, I had roaming switched on, so I was expecting to pay more than my usual $112 per month. Never in my wildest imagination was I expecting to be charged an astonishing $1,065 for a single month's use!

It's ironic but the bill always starts with the inviting "Dear Valued Customer". I say ironic, because like so many other companies on the island, they simply do not care to understand the concept of customer loyalty. Like all of us, I'm not a valued customer, at all. I'm just another fool who continues to allow companies like Digicel to take full advantage of their almost monopoly status. Like so many other providers in Bermuda (Belco to name another will someone please explain what fuel adjustment is, anyway?), there is no inclination whatsoever from these operators to try and reduce the end price to its "Valued Customers".

Breaking down my bill further, allows for an interesting read. I'm not a heavy user, far from it, in fact. During my two week's away, I sent or received 180 e-mails and my bill was a staggering $830, which works out to $4.60 per e-mail. In fact, one of my e-mails was billed at $68.59. Yes, you read it correctly, $69 for sending one e-mail. To put this in context, last year I sent a 60 page fax to Bermuda from a hotel in Spain and it cost $15. Where is the logic in that?

A fax which cost $15, versus an e-mail which cost me $69? In most countries, global communications have been set up as they are supposed to make communicating cheaper. In most countries, they rely on being competitive to attract customers. Sadly though, Digicel does not need to be so attentive to its customers' needs. Since they operate pretty much in a monopoly, they do as they please, to our detriment. I guess 11 million Digicel customers can't be wrong, I hear them say. But in all honesty, how many customers here on the Island feel they are getting value for money?

But that's not the point. We all want these companies to make money, because that's good for the economy, but when you charge so much for what is considered a necessity and not a luxury anymore, you should endeavour to ensure that you are providing it at a cost that is affordable. I'm sure Digicel have various reasons to justify the high prices they charge, but I'm afraid it's symptomatic of commercial attitude in Bermuda and that is there is no need to try and give the customer they want at a cheaper price because they have nowhere else to go. Competition is always a good thing, but it sadly lacks presence in Bermuda. What a shame and shame on you Digicel. I will pay my bill, but I will not be using your services again.

EX-CUSTOMER

Pembroke

Test welfare recipients

September 5, 2010

Dear Sir,

Like most folks on this Island, I have a job. I work – they pay me. I pay my taxes and the Government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that pay cheque in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. So, here is my question: "Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque 'cause I have to pass one to earn it for them?" I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. On the other hand, I have a real problem with helping someone sitting around doing drugs while at work Can you imagine how much money would be saved if people had to "pass a urine test" to get a public assistance cheque? I guess we could title that programme, "Urine or You're Out". But something has to change on this Island/Country and soon!

RAYMOND RAY

St. George's

Thank you, thief

August 31, 2010

Dear Sir,

To the person who stole the sheets and pillow cases from our tumble dryer, we have the matching valance should you need it. Yours in disbelief,

ANDREW R. DOBLE

Hamilton Parish

Consider the fathers

September 6, 2010

Dear Sir,

In a recent front page article of The Royal Gazette, the Attorney General states that "deadbeat dads" could be blocked from renewing their driving licences among other draconian measures such as forcing people (mainly fathers) in maintenance arrears from their homes, forcing banks to release funds for child support from clients' accounts, and coupling jail time with mandatory work programs to pay these mothers. I could scarcely repress the grief and anguish that I felt for the fathers who may have been affected. The entire article struck me as being exceedingly gender biased. Many fathers would be far more likely to pay child support if they were ensured equality in our courts in administrating quality time and a fair quantity of time with their children with a proportionate decrease in the amount paid to the mother as based on the time they spend with their children.

Nevertheless, we see in Bermuda that approximately 95 percent of the time, the children displaced by divorce or separation are placed under the control of the mother. This enables the mother to use the children as an instrument of extortion by legally forcing her spending habits on the father without his agreement or approval. If each parent were allowed to have children an equal amount of time, or at least an agreed amount of time, the conflict would be considerably lessened. But this is often not the case at least in Bermuda. Increased conflict results in increased legal and judicial expenses, which would be better expended upon the children.

Mr. Editor, you may have guessed that I am a displaced father. However, I do not fail to pay my monthly child support. Nevertheless, the amount that I do pay is considerable. It can be likened to modern day slavery. Fathers are often forced to work 60 to 70 hours a week, as I do, to pay for what is considered to be the "needs" of the children. Exotic, pure-bred pets, hair colouring at a salon, excessive trips overseas (three or more a year) all for the children are just a few of the expenses that I have had to contribute to without any say.

When I read the Attorney General's comment about a hopefully non-fiction incident when a frustrated mother claims she saw the father of the child driving a sporty car, she certainly couldn't have been talking about me. I drive a car that is 18 years old and on its last leg so to speak. I pay for half of all my children's private school education, as well as living expenses, but it is never enough. In fact, in the past two years, I've voluntarily increased my payment for their care by over six percent a year much more than the increase of inflation. But it is not enough, since we all know that greed knows no bounds. When my ex-wife noticed this article, she informed me that it was time to go to the Supreme Court again for more child-support, as she felt her "needs" were not being met she really meant her "wants". It seems the climate was ripe in the courts along with some public sentiment, as being fuelled by the Attorney General's comments, that a more favourable settlement might be reckoned at this time.

The needs of the father are often not considered fairly. He must work to maintain two homes his own and his ex-wife's. In my own case, I was never unfaithful, but instead was betrayed by my ex-wife. But that has no bearing. It appears we now will have extended legal documents going back and forth with accompanying court cases-all at the considerable expense of the children financially and emotionally. Instead, a solution could be far better masterminded by a reasonably priced, unbiased panel of counsellors through which a fair, yet binding, resolution/agreement can be drawn up. If this fails, then it could go before the courts.

Mr. Editor, I grieve for the hurt that divorce causes, both to the children and the afflicted parents, but the current system fails miserably in solving the problems; it only creates more grief, and it focuses on punishments rather than the societal issues and legal system causing many of the problems. How can it be that 95 percent of divorced fathers are unfit to have their children in their care? I also question the motives of the Family Law Reform Committee in proposing the draconian measures instead of focusing on the problems of bringing displaced children and parents together again. It was with great publicity that the Family Law Reform Committee sought community input; however, few positive measures, it appears from these recommendations, were actually recommended in their report.

Where is the report with recommendations, and who actually determined them? Are the members so ashamed, or so biased by the possible loss of personal gain, that the recommendations and the recommenders will remain in the clandestine "hallowed" halls of jurisprudence? I am forced to agree with one recent opinion writer in your paper that it is an opportunity lost, where only further suffering and punishment will appear to be meted out.

LOVE MY CHILDREN

Pembroke

A superb history

August 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

I would like to draw attention to the book by Dr. Michael Jarvis called "In the Eye of All Trade" which is a superb history of Bermuda in the 1700s. Dr. Jarvis has delved into our seagoing past and into the relationships between slave and free Bermudians as they sailed their small sloops up and down the Caribbean and the Atlantic coast of the United States. It's particularly interesting to learn about the freedom with which sailors slave and free were allowed to trade on their own behalf. Sometimes the slave sailors were allowed to use their profits to purchase their freedom. Not only did the slave sailors trade on their own behalf, but they also on occasion acted as supercargoes for their masters, trading the vessel's cargo for goods which might sell in the next port of call.

Slaves and freemen worked together building a trading network and at the same time maintaining a shipbuilding business of vessels which found a ready sale, sometimes even being built to orders of persons abroad. Eventually the Royal Navy purchased Bermuda-built vessels useful sloops of war sloops were a class of warship smaller than a frigate, but often square-rigged quite different from the single-masted sloops Bermudians used for trade and privateering. The degree to which Bermudians set up depots abroad and settled in other ports is a revelation of our influence in the western Atlantic trading world.

Altogether there is much that is surprising and interesting in Dr. Jarvis' book which tells about many fundamental aspects of our past. Scholars will refer to it for years to come, and persons interested in our history will find it indispensable

WILLIAM S. ZUILL SR.

Smith's