Have you no shame?

July 3, 2003

Dear Sir,

Heartless and inconsiderate is what I have to say about the article in today's Royal Gazette!

Do you not even care that a mother has just lost her only child at such a precious and tender age. What gives anyone the right to question a mother's concern for their child? When you have the perfect child, then you can pass judgment . You have yet to know ALL the details that lead to the tragic death of that young man, yet you can be so heartless and judgmental.

A family is grieving and all you can do is attack them over something you have no business in. It is hard enough that they are dealing with this tragedy, let them mourn and rest their son in peace. God forbid that it was your child.

There is only one being that should be judging and I don't recall reading about you in Sunday school.

CARING MOTHER

Pembroke

Thanks to you all

July 1, 2003

Dear Sir,

On the evening of Saturday, June 3, at the base of McGall's Hill, I was knocked off my cycle. I would like to thank the many members of the public that came to my assistance, including the off-duty policewoman, the off-duty lifeguard, the St. George's Police, the ambulance crew, the doctor and nurses at KEMH, the crew at Classic Cycles, my wife and son and Cathedral family.

Lastly I give all praise and glory to God Almighty, my creator, for allowing me to live to see another day.

WALTER CARLINGTON

Southampton

Killing off opportunity

June 27, 2003

Dear Sir,

If, and I stress the word if, the headline in today's Royal Gazette 'Lister: No more than nine years for key workers' is correct then we all have to be seriously concerned for the future economic well being and viability of Bermuda. The very foundations of the vibrant Bermudian economy upon which we all depend will be terminally weakened.

The Bermudian economy is now dependent upon the offshore business community and in particular those with a physical presence on the island; without these businesses the Bermudian economy would be much smaller, to the detriment of all of us. There would be little or no opportunity for Bermudians to advance economically and the outlook for many would be dismal.

To tell founders and senior executives of multi-billion dollar companies that the maximum time that they are allowed to work for, and lead, these companies will be nine years is just not on. They will simply relocate their companies to jurisdictions which allow them the freedom to develop their companies as they wish. Bermuda is an attractive and in many ways a desirable place from which to operate an offshore company but it is not the only place. As Bermudians we have to face up to the fact that while the offshore business community may like Bermuda it does not need Bermuda but Bermuda needs the offshore business community. We cannot just lay down blanket rules such as a maximum limit on work permits; we need to be very flexible in working with these companies.

While many Bermudians may think that maximum and tough work permit rules will create opportunities for Bermudians the reverse is in fact the case; they will destroy opportunities. The companies that create these opportunities will be driven away and the impact on the local companies will be very negative and substantially reduce employment and so opportunities in those companies as well.

Having said the above, I do have concerns about the rapid growth of the last few years and the strain that it puts on the infrastructure in Bermuda; the cost of housing is a prime example. If we cannot get control of this rising cost, then ordinary Bermudians will be priced out of the market. There is no benefit to a booming economy if we cannot afford to live in it.

While the economy of Bermuda is vibrant and has shown steady growth and stability for many hears it is delicate. We need to develop a long-term strategy for the economy that is sensible, carefully thought out and flexible; not one based on 'sound bites' in an election campaign.

I could go on at length and would welcome the opportunity to debate the above but believe that my point is made. I would ask that all politicians and business leaders carefully consider matters before making quick, short-term decisions. As the senior executive of Enron, Worldcom etc. have shown concentrating on short-term gains has terrible long-term economic consequences.

GEOFFREY FRITH

Pembroke

...and on the same subject

June 27, 2003

Dear Sir,

I have grave fears that the present Government has learned nothing from the modern history of an area not far from home.

In the early and mid-1970s, Lyndon Pindling became extortionate with his work permit policies in Nassau, drove out foreign businessmen by refusing to renew permits and by fettering business with red tape. To drive in the final nail he made clear what he thought of international companies by levying a tax on insurance premiums.

Pindling, intoxicated by power, thought that he was a modern day King Canute. A relationship between Canute (reputed to be a Scandinavian) and those presently holding sway in the Cabinet Building is becoming more and more suspect. Mr. Editor, to my personal knowledge, in the mid 1970s Bermuda was the destination of choice of the many businesses (including all of the insurance companies) who just folded their tents in Nassau. The Bahamas never regained what they lost. Today many of those businesses are still here, for 30 years have been model members of the community and a significant proportion of the root of Bermuda's present prosperity.

Its hard to tell at this time whether Mr. Lister, the Home Affairs Minister, is just pandering to the PLP's old guard and its left wing in the run-up to the election, or whether he genuinely believes that the physical presence businesses will stay here after he kicks out all the people who manage and work in it. The problem is now that he has lit the fire he will have a predictably impossible time if he tries to back away or modify his utterances.

He has not only damaged Bermuda as a prospective destination for new business but has started the relocation wheels turning for those already here. With the Patriot Act in Washington, the OECD and the EU all trying to put us under, this scene gives rise to complete dismay. Anyone who thinks Bermuda's economy is managed by the Finance Minister (with or without Mr. Lister's input) is sadly disillusioned. A mere four or five physical presence international company boards of directors are all that keeps us where we are in the economic world standings. Jennifer, Lois, Eugene, Renee et al are only the tail of the dog (right now wagging for all their political lives are worth).

Mr. Editor this emerging policy in the insidious pursuit of social engineering is just plain socialism with heavy racial overtones gone crazy. If Bermuda needs people here to operate these international businesses (and it is indisputable that we do), we ought to be making every effort to remove obstacles and red tape so that they remain here as long as we can persuade them to stay and the present lack of qualified Bermudians exists.

Our livelihoods depend on that and so do the livelihoods of our children. If some individuals stay long enough that we should grant long term residency status and Bermudian status so be it. Their long term existence on the island and the continued presence here of their related international business entities is ample enough proof that Bermuda needs these people. Further they have every right to expect to be full members of the community which they will have helped build for the better part of their working careers. This same test has been applied to every present day Bermudian or his or her ancestors.

Addressing the longer term, I venture that most foreign business people would not retire or wish to stay in Bermuda after their working careers were over; but if they did the Island would be the better for it. Mr. Lister knows (if his colleagues don't) the meaning of the term "cash flow". People generate cash flows and the bottom line is only people (not companies) make decisions about cash flows. And if you run them out, Bermudians will find their individual and collective cash flows diminished.

I suspect that an unfortunate mental block exists somewhere in the governing party founded on deep-seated prejudices against many of the aspects of things that come with the international business which now, like it or not, feeds such a large percentage of us all. Our government's rhetoric typically reflects its internal conflicts. One pronouncement says all is well (when all but a fool can see that it isn't) and the next bashes away at what remains of the last foundation of our prosperity. Deletion of the word "transparency" from the dictionary makes it difficult to know what really is going on.

It may be an approach the PLP old guard inherited from Pindling and their left wing may love it, but if this cumulative bashing of foreign workers and international business does not stop forthwith, without the tourists, all of us are going to be the poorer for it.

BEEN THERE, DIDN'T LIKE WHAT I SAW

Warwick

Don't be a political pawn

July 29, 2003

Dear Sir,

How gullible does the Smith Government think Bermuda's taxi drivers are? How forgiving are Bermudians to be willing to hear what the PLP's transport platform will be before they decide how to use their powerful vote on July 24?

Well I'll help them out and tell them what the Premier will say so they don't waste their time. My version won't be quite as condescending however.

The Premier will promise taxi drivers that she "has and will continue to listen to their concerns. The industry needs reform and the PLP government is committed to helping them - in hindsight, GPS might not be the best solution. The administration understands their concerns and is working in their best interests. We are a Government of consultation".

She'll discover a newfound fondness for collaboration and will tell them exactly what they want to hear - maybe even that Dr. Brown will be removed from Transport if he were to be so fortunate as to be re-elected.

Meanwhile the United Bermuda Party has always opposed and recently re-affirmed their commitment to oppose mandatory GPS. The UBP will let the bill die on the grapevine. The PLP Government on the other hand, until the minute before the election was called, remained stubbornly determined to ram a GPS company down the throats of taxi drivers.

There's no need to forgive in this case, because the Smith Government's illness can't be cured. The arrogance and close-mindedness of the past five years will merely go into remission until July 24 - unless the PLP are voted out.

If the taxi drivers' 3,000 votes go to the PLP they'll have validated five years of mistreatment by an arrogant and self-serving Government. They'll have shown that you can be manipulated, ignored and used as pawns for a desperate re-election bid.

Come to think of it, this applies to the other 36,000 Bermudians who might be considering how to vote on that day.

ACTIONS NOT WORDS

Warwick

Work for it

June 26, 2003

Dear Sir,

Dear cash-strapped law student: Prosperity is not your birthright.

Not having enough cash to finish a degree has always been a problem for nearly everyone except for those who are wealthy. Unfortunately, it is my belief that a university, let alone a university with a law school, cannot be financially viable in Bermuda. Money does not grow on trees. Contrary to what a number of people, except, the government (i.e., the taxpayer) should not be requested to provide unlimited funding for education, especially for postgraduate work. Please realise that what you ask means a tremendous sacrifice or redistributing of government funds for those people who do not have enough money to buy medicine, hospitalisation, food, or even a home here in Bermuda. The Government already can be seen to be spending far beyond what the taxpayer wants (or needs) to pay, due to inefficiency, poor decision-making, and waste.

May I suggest to all who share your concerns: (1) Go to Bermuda College to get an associate's degree before going to university - you'd save a bundle of money and get a good degree that will transfer nearly anywhere. (2) Work summers - you'll appreciate your education even more. (3) Apply for as many scholarships as possible - if you've studied hard enough to get good grades - as a number often go unawarded due to a lack of qualified applicants. (4) Borrow money from those who love and trust you, or if you have to, from the bank. You may have to work five-ten years to pay it back, but when you get your law degree, the financial rewards should be returned. (5) Attend the University of Kent for two years of law, study and live in Bermuda, or if you are not a law student, please know that there are a number of other articulation agreements between Bermuda College and universities overseas where many credits would apply towards a Bachelor's degree.

I will never earn as much as a lawyer earns, but I had to work had to get my college education, and even eat soup and accept charity on the weekends to survive. It did help me appreciate the sacrifice of getting a good education, the rewards of which I am still benefiting from. You sound like a person who appreciates how a good education can help. This is an admirable quality. Work for it. Take a year or two off from school to earn some money.

WORK BUILDS CHARACTER

Warwick

Questions on overtime

July 3, 2003

Dear Sir,

I have a couple of questions for Minister Lister about the proposed implementation of mandatory overtime for those who don't fall within the "managerial or professional" category, and who are not employed in the industries to be exempted.

1. If I currently have an employee on an annual salary that was calculated to cover occasional overtime, and the employee was informed and agreed to this, will I be allowed to reduce the annual salary accordingly when I begin paying overtime?

2. Will there be any payroll tax rate reductions or any other concessions to cover the cost of implementing and administering a time and attendance system to accurately monitor and track overtime hours?

3. Can I define 'managerial and professional' myself (and defend this to the Employment Act Tribunal as needed), or will I be provided with some sort of guideline along the lines of the 'exempt/non exempt' classes in the US?

4. If I cannot afford to pay overtime, presumably I am free to limit my full-time employees to a 40-hour week, and hire part-time employees to do the overtime. This will require some training in some cases, but if the work isn't complex then it might be worth it. Then another employer can hire my full-time workers for part-time work after hours, as they'll probably want to still earn the additional money at straight time.

5. Alternatively, if I can't afford to pay overtime, I presume I am free to require 100 percent productivity from my employees during the 40-hour work week, and start getting a bit stricter about those concessions that I currently make for the occasional personal call or appointment during working hours. That will change the culture in my organisation, but maybe that is just the price of progress.

If the aim of this change is to correct situations where employees are unfairly forced into agreeing to overtime for no additional pay or straight time, then making overtime mandatory seems like a sledgehammer approach. There are many employees out there who accept and don't mind doing occasional overtime for no additional pay - their salaries and jobs reflect the need to do this on occasion.

Why penalise all employers with the additional administration and cost of tracking hours and potentially paying overtime? Why penalise employees who are fine with doing overtime for straight time, as they are probably going to loose this opportunity to part-time workers? Wouldn't it make more sense to identify the few situations where true abuse is occurring and penalise those specific employers?

I apologise for the nom de plume, but I don't want to risk jeopardising my future dealings with Minister Lister and his Ministry. After all, the Minister has a healthy allowance of discretionary judgement about matters that cross his desk.

JUST WONDERING

Paget