Dear Editor,

Who can ignore her remarkable capacity to prevent parliament from becoming a defunct entity? And, could there be a substitute for this literary mind, in such a challenging period of our history? Sandwiched between frustration of stagnation and a passion to steer the legislative branch of government, this courageous warrior is determined to press forward with unyielding tenacity – a journey that can be compared to steadying a Boeing 747, packed with unruly passengers. Even though she did not get to execute as many plans as were drafted, her commitment has allowed her to withstand the torrents of pressures, designed only to retaliate.

This politician is savvy, charismatic, one of a kind, and exceedingly admirable - an undisputable claim and a powerhouse to wrestle with. If there were medals for being poised; demonstrating an assortment of diplomacy; utilizing the English language effectively and maintaining order in parliament; undoubtedly, she would capture every one of them. The decades of experience within this political arena have given her countless opportunities to study the science of psychology. So, whenever she is confronted with a series of inept and juvenile behaviours, she exhibits her position of authority, by responding with grace and still seizes the moment for incidental teaching.

Besides this boundless experience and knowledge of government, it is quite obvious that this team leader is a bookworm, which gives her an enormous leverage over her colleagues. Here is where she has the advantage of knowing exactly when to quote the various articles within the Constitution, and how to apply them to the subject at hand. She also makes use of the opportunity to share clippings from other destinations and recommends certain books that can elevate the level of thinking in parliament. If this maestro is being interrupted to handle an unusual request, her eyes would reveal her emotions; yet, she remains focused and even more determined to proceed with the planned agenda.

Through the turbulent times, this gifted politician looked through the prism of intelligence, in order to maintain her composure. Despite the attempt by some to interrupt the trajectory to move ahead, she always focused on the principles of team building. This is customer service, provided at its highest level of excellence!

It is regrettable that members of parliament took for granted, this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be students of a master class. I wish that I could have gotten an invitation to spend just a day with her.

This kind of talent is rare and can sometimes be incompatible with one’s position. Compared to her previous functions in the capacity of Leader of Government and Prime Minister respectively, it is as if this role were tailored to suit. So, who is more qualified to proceed in establishing a well-functional and highly-regarded parliament? Without bias, the credentials match perfectly to the one and only, Chairlady of Parliament Sarah We scot-Williams - a politician who has left an indelible mark on how to conduct the proceedings of a parliamentary system.

Joslyn Morton

Dear Editor,

At last, some good news on protecting vulnerable workers in the home. They care for our children, elderly, disabled and homes, but are we doing enough to take care of them?

We estimate that domestic workers typically earn less than half of average wages, and sometimes no more than about 20 per cent. Their hours are among the longest and most unpredictable, and 90 per cent do not enjoy access to social protections such as pensions and unemployment benefits.

At least 80 per cent of all domestic workers are women, which means that women are disproportionately affected by these decent work deficits. Domestic work also represents some four per cent of the female labour force. In Latin America for instance, 14 per cent of all female wage workers are domestic workers.

There is also an international dimension – recent ILO analysis indicates that 17 per cent of domestic workers are migrants.

At stake is the wellbeing of tens of millions of domestic workers and that of the families for whom they work. Recent UN estimates on population and ageing confirm that demand for domestic work is likely to grow: with ageing populations, reduction of public care policies and an increasing number of women entering the labour force worldwide, families are increasingly turning to domestic workers to care for their homes, children and ageing parents.

Though often hidden, domestic workers are a fundamental part of the care economy delivering in-home care services in both the informal and formal economy. Concerned by cost and complexity of becoming formally employed many avoid it, resulting in high levels of informal employment and undeclared work.

While these problems are not new, I am encouraged by the remarkably positive way global policy makers have stepped up to the challenge.

Five years ago today, the ILO adopted the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) and its accompanying Recommendation 201. These were the first international standards on decent work for domestic workers, aiming precisely to extend fundamental protections and rights to the 67 million domestic workers labouring in private homes around the world. That the Convention was adopted with near unanimity by the ILO member states, and signalled the global recognition that despite providing crucial services to homes and societies within the care economy, domestic workers were facing severe discrimination with respect to working conditions and human rights.

The subsequent response from countries around the world has been impressive, with law and policy reform underway globally.

In 2010, the ILO estimated that only 10 per cent of domestic workers were covered by labour legislation to the same extent as other workers. Since 2011, over 70 countries have taken action to ensure decent work for domestic workers. Of these, 22 have ratified the Convention, another 30 have achieved law and policy reform, and at least another 18 are engaged in extending protections to domestic workers. The ILO has partnered with constituents in 60 of these countries, drawing across the office’s full breadth of expertise to build their capacity across a vast spectrum of policy areas.

While these measures represent the first steps on a long path to redress a history of exclusion, they are not enough to meet the challenge of protecting domestic workers. Reports on the widespread abuse and exploitation continue to stream through the media. In many ways the statistics I cited at the outset speak for themselves.

In adopting the Sustainable Development Goals, the UN pledged that no one would be left behind. On the right to decent work for domestic workers we’ve made a good start, but the task will require sustained attention to ensure real progress. If we are serious about the achievement of the sustainable development goals of poverty reduction, equality and decent work for all, in particular for women, then addressing deficits in domestic work is essential.

For its part, the ILO will continue to work in partnership with governments, workers, employers and the international community to build on the positive workers have a right becomes the reality.

Guy Ryder,

Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO)

An OP-ED on the 5th anniversary of ILO Convention No 189,

the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011

Dear Editor,

In yesterday’s paper there was a letter to the editor that purported to demonstrate why an argument that appeared in the Boston Globe was so callous that it needed to be openly condemned.

Now, like a lot of these arguments there will always be extreme positions that might deserve an eye roll or something, but the one put forth in the Globe was not that way and the response printed here was simply and unabashed factually wrong.

First and foremost, let’s be crystal clear. The AR15 used in the Orlando shooting was not and never was an assault weapon. The AR15 is an assault styled weapon. It looks very much like its big brother, the M16A1 but is as different as night and day. It is a civilian sporting gun that is made to look military, but here is the key point... It functions exactly like every other magazine fed gun of any kind that is legal for the civilian market, be it hand gun or rifle.

One pull of the trigger sends one bullet out the front of the gun. An assault weapon, be it rifle or carbine or any other configuration is, in effect a machine gun. One pull of the trigger can send all the bullets the magazine is capable of holding down stream all at once.

This mistake is not just innocent semantics. It is the intentional and wilful misuse of language employed by the anti-gun lobby to incite and mislead as many people as possible in order to further their cause. It’s the Hillary Clinton syndrome. Lie about something often, long enough and it becomes the truth.

The simple fact is that the AR15 that this guy used to murder those innocent people was no more lethal than the handgun that he carried or any long barrel hunting or sporting rifle would have been barring single shot bolt action weapons. It is a “pimped out,” military looking gun that functions in a completely ordinary fashion. Why do people own them? Who knows?

Probably the same reason people that drive Hyundai’s wear Ferrari jackets, women wear knock off designer clothes and men wear fake Rolexes. An assault style weapons ban would have changed nothing in Orlando. The nut job would simply have bought any one of a hundred non-assault style weapons and had exactly the same fire power.

And there in lay the rub and what infuriates the legal and responsible gun owner. What we are talking about here is a complete whack job that broke no existing gun laws what so ever and used weapons legally purchased to commit this horrible crime. And the Globe guy got it right when he said that if a gun wasn’t available to the whack job he would found another way.

Five dollars’ worth of gas and a cigarette lighter and he could have killed 100 instead of just 49. In a free society It’s not hard to do evil if evil is your intent and if you want to have that discussion then that’s for another day. But for the “assault weapon” ban having any beneficial effect, that’s just chicken droppings. And just by the way… note that the routine murder rate on any weekend in Chicago or Detroit or even DC approaches and sometimes exceeds the Orlando body count every single weekend. It’s the people that are the criminals. Not the guns.

Steven Johnson

Dear Editor,

I read your editorial in response to the reports regarding school bus services. You summed up what you consider should be taken in account, and which could possibly amount to those figures. I could not directly recover where your summation of what could jack up the prices of those bills, was mentioned. Should not all of this have been negotiated before the price per trip was determined, similar to that of a construction contract?

Those busses are not the property of government. I am content that again a question of public transportation is being brought forward.

It all comes back to what I continue to propagate. Public transportation should be in the hands of the public (government). Whatever has to be changed and regulated can be changed with a transition period to compensate whoever needs to be compensated. The schools do not change location so the infrastructure can be studied and the routes can be re-arranged and laid out to avoid those complicated trips, and possibly make the trips shorter.

Which brings me back to my suggestion to change government working hours and school hours from seven to three. In addition, I would like to suggest that random tests should be made on school bus drivers, because on several occasions, I have seen school bus drivers getting into their bus with open beer bottles in their hands, containing liquid. There is one male driver that I saw buy the beer, opened it and I saw him get into the bus. This was in the beginning of April this year.

I am aware that nobody wants anyone to touch their money, but it should be earned earnestly. Everybody must eat, because I firmly believe that any man who goes out there and works eight hours a day should not have to worry about where he is going to get a plate of food tomorrow. And just like I continue to say that I do not agree with the kind of salaries and compensation that the MP's and ministers are enjoying, I will say that everybody should have a liveable income, and not a certain part of the community, while the rest have to struggle to make ends meet.

If government continues to permit a certain set of citizens to get so much more than the rest, government should know what can be the consequences. I will not use the same words that were used about two weeks ago, but the writing is on the wall. We need more balanced wages and in a country with a population of 40 to 50 thousand on 16 square miles, it should not take accountants bureaus to be able to reckon who should get what.

A MAVO student with a simple bookkeeping should be able to administrate that after the government has adequately determined reasonable liveable salaries. The Labour Department has to do its work. Government has to stop juggling. And the same way kinks were ironed out of the school bus transportation's budget, the same way all of those other kinks could be ironed out, and we would see that way too much money is given to the wrong people.

Many of those school children, who have grown up, now say that that has always been the modus operandi of government. That is why none are condemning the next and the same people are being shuffled from one board of the government-owned companies to the other. I was told not to defend them when they get caught, because they never cared about the people, so the people should not care about them.

They are involved in public transportation, supermarkets, construction, gas companies and anything one can think about. Can we press upon them to at least start by regulating the public transportation, so that everybody could be served without being picked up, because one does not live in a more lucrative for the permit holders' area. Let them for once ignore ‘what's in it for me’ and do the right thing. Are they not being (over)paid to do so?

Let us continue to pray for them. There is a saying in Dutch which, translated into English is, "The pitcher which is thrown in the well too often, does come up broken at last" I think that so many discrepancies have been uncovered of late that it is time for the players to adhere to that saying.

Russell A. Simmons