Dear Editor,
This week the GGMC published a full-page advertisement on the “benefits” it provides its employees who are on strike. This expansive exposition of so-called “fringe benefits” provided by GGMC to prove that their staff are being treated fairly and caringly seems rather misplaced in the context of the apparent ‘bone of contention’ between GGMC and GPSU, which reportedly has to do with salary adjustments and increases.
I cannot comment on the negotiations or lack thereof, because I am not privy to the details and nuances of the issues which led to the apparent breakdown, but I certainly share the views expressed by Mr E B John in his letter in SN of January 20, that the lumping of all staff (managerial, supervisory, professional, technical, skilled, manual, security, etc) into one organization-wide category represented by one union is most unconventional and possibly quite counter-productive (‘All GGMC employees except the commissioner are membners of GPSU’).
What I would like to draw attention to is GGMC’s apparent miscue mentioned above, and moreso to discuss the anachronism implicit in GGMC’s misplaced belief that the paternalistic, antiquated “benefits” which are enumerated in their advertisement are still potent HRM instruments to attract, motivate, retain and win the loyalty of staff in this day and age.
Time was – emphasis on the past – when the ‘benefits’ component of the compensation/ reward package was significant, perhaps as significant as the ‘salary’ component. However, with each successive wave of societal change (eg, graduations from the ‘manorial’ or ‘plantation’ stages to progressive individual/communal/national/socio-political advancements and self-determination in housing, education, health, national insurance, pensions and related ‘welfare’ services, people preferred to make individual choices. Hence, there is a greater attraction and preference for the flexibility facilitated by liquid, versatile cash, which allowed them to make their own choices regarding the allocation of their earnings between benefits versus cash rewards.
The GGMC advertisement lists 31 items of allowances and benefits ranging widely from monetary allowances to soap and toilet paper (sic)! Besides its obvious outmoded, paternalistic nature, which goes against the grain of current compensation management (including the ‘cafeteria’ system, which allows employees to make individual choices between various combinations of ‘cash’ and ‘benefits’ items), most of the ‘benefits’ are influenced by length of service.
In today’s reality of increasing numbers of knowledge workers, motivated by new challenges and career-growth opportunities within or outside any one corporation and in the further context of globalization, the virtual free and easy movement of human resources across national boundaries (eg, CSME and self-sponsorship to North America), increases in the number of rolls of toilet paper, travelling, vacation and retirement allowances, etc, pale into insignificance; similarly, training opportunities are not seen as perks for which employees must be grateful to the employer; they are self-serving employer imperatives not employee ‘benefits’ per se. Relatively young, bright employees are not as motivated by the ‘benefits’ which are more attractive to older, less versatile workers. These ‘benefits’ are influenced by longevity in the organization (not necessarily by advanced, relevant competences) eg, pension, medical and retirement benefits, farewells, long-service awards, death benefits; children’s education allowances, etc. Besides, some raise critical issues of equity, eg, why should a childless person be denied his/her share of the company’s expenditure on children’s education allowances when s/he can use the cash equivalent for another pursuit of his/her choice.
Conclusion: Employers need to critically re-examine their compensation packages to ensure that every component of the package is better suited to the current and future needs of both themselves and the majority of their employees, and that they get the best ‘mileage’ from their expenditure on staff compensation/reward.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
