Trinidad and Tobago’s trade union movement remains critically divided across three competing federations, fundamentally undermining worker protections and collective bargaining power. This institutional fragmentation has created a landscape where governments can strategically exploit internal divisions, leaving workers vulnerable to unfavorable settlements.
The historical roots of this disunity trace back to the movement’s earliest days, with pioneering leaders like Cipriani, Rienzi, and Butler initially mobilizing workers across vital sectors including oil, sugar, and transportation. However, the subsequent emergence of multiple federations revealed deep-seated challenges stemming from ideological differences, personality conflicts, and competing political allegiances.
Today, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions and Non-Governmental Organisations (FITUN), the Joint Trade Union Movement (JTUM), and the National Trade Union Centre (NATUC) operate as separate entities with no union belonging to all three simultaneously. This institutional separation has created barriers to principled solidarity, with each federation guarding its independence at the expense of collective strength.
The consequences of this division became starkly evident during recent wage negotiations. The government’s four percent wage offer was accepted by individual unions rather than through unified federation leadership, with some unions justifying their position through legal arguments never properly tested. This fragmentation set a damaging precedent that weakened the movement’s credibility.
The subsequent ten percent settlement for public servants further exacerbated divisions, prompting other unions to seek similar treatment rather than reinforcing collective bargaining principles. This selective distribution of benefits has created inequities across the public sector, where compensation should reflect duties, responsibilities, and rising living costs.
Analysts observe that without a unified approach, the trade union movement cannot effectively defend workers’ interests. The current structure of three separate federations operating in isolation prevents the consistency and credibility that a single, cohesive organization could provide. What’s needed is leadership willing to project a collective voice rather than hiding behind independence as justification for division.
The ongoing fragmentation risks diminishing the relevance of trade unionism altogether as workers lose faith in divided leadership. Only when union leaders transcend their differences and embrace principled unity can the movement restore its credibility and protect workers from bearing the cost of choices they did not make.