He told us that these changes are not "union busting" as the CWU President describes it, and that the management believes that it is acting in the best interest of the workers who contribute to the Social Security Fund. Here's how he put it:

Doug Singh, Chairman - SSB Board of Directors
"He is saying that the critical issues for the employees are money issues. Those money issues in particular and he mention this being the elimination of the vacation grant and the reduction in the number of vacation days. I find his comments quite interesting because none of the employees, the union members or any employees at Social Security will be affected by the proposal of the board and management."

"What the board and management is proposing is future hires at SSB will not be entitled to a vacation grant and will not be entitled to the same amount of vacation that current hires are entitled to. Employees at Social Security, new hires - if you are at a junior level you get 20 vacation days right off the bat. That is 4 weeks of vacation for new hires. For senior people its 25 vacation days - 5 weeks, and we are saying that rather high. It contributes to inefficiency in the organization and it's really costly to the organization. There is nothing wrong with having 2 tiers of vacation entitlement. Most institutions do. When you start you get 2 weeks and you work for 3 year or 5 years and you get 3 weeks and you for 10 years and you get 4 weeks. There is a growth program under what you are entitled to that you earn over a period of time. Vacation grant has been eliminated by the government of Belize. It's a thing of the past. But we did not want to undermine any of the existing employees. So vacation grants for all existing employees continue. It is only new hires that would not be entitle to vacation grant."

"We are therefore taken aback that the union would take the position that we are negotiating for potential employees of SSB. Potential new hire, potential union members rather than looking after the interest or the primary interest of those people who are the union members who are unaffected by the proposal. So really the objective is to try to reduce the operating cost at SSB."

"Salaries and compensation packages is a huge portion of our administrative expense and we have to do what we can to reduce this, so that we can safeguard the fund and so that we can ensure that the beneficiaries can get the best possible benefit from the funds."

"And the end of the day, these perks are being paid for by contributors to the fund who don't get these perks and we as a board, we as management, we as staff, everybody including the union staff members have an obligation to ensure that we do right by the people who contribute to this fund and that's what we are trying to do and we are trying to do it in a responsible way where we do not undermine the benefits of the existing employees and that we set new standards for new hires that can be more equitable, or can be more palpable or affordable by the fund."

Singh also made the point to us that currently the vacation grant that employees are paid costs the fund, and contributors, a whopping half a million dollars. HE SAYS management is only seeking to rein in spending so that you get more from social security, while protecting the interests of current employees.