Finance Minister Winston Jordan would—much more than the average citizen—be au fait with the condition of the national economy (or what is usually referred to as the numbers) in the context of whether or not it is in a position to afford public servants a salary increase and just how much the economy might be able to afford at this time.
He speaks, as he is quoted elsewhere in the media as saying, from the perspective of being “an economist and Minister of Finance” which, of course means, that what he says is informed by a particular prejudice, that is, a disinclination as it relates to meeting what he is further quoted as describing as “exaggerated demands for wage increases.” These would not have been unexpected utterances from a Minister of Finance who would have just emerged from a meeting with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) even though there is a puzzling—perhaps even deliberate—absence of context in what he has to say.
What comes to mind firstly, is the fact that public servants have been denied the right to make any sort of demand – exaggerated or otherwise – for a salary increase in many years so that what is exaggerated and what is not – is something that will evidently have to be addressed in any discourse between government and trade unions, which, one assumes, is the framework to which we will now return, to negotiate salary increases.
Secondly, one would have to wonder whether what Mr Jordan has had to say is convivial to the creation of an enabling environment for fair and unbiased negotiations, particularly since it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the workers’ representatives might interpret all that the minister had to say as an attempt to hem them in and to dampen expectations, even at this early stage, as far as their negotiating latitude is concerned.
Nor, one assumes, would Minister Jordan have afforded himself such latitude as he does in his comment on public servants’ salaries except he was, in fact, bringing a message from central government as a whole that seeks to address and rein in what it might feel may be, in the circumstances, excessive expectations from public servants as far as the next salary increase is concerned.
Not only the minister, but most people will remember the small squall that erupted last year in the wake of the hike in ministers’ salaries and—in a situation where it might have been expected that a meaningful public servants pay hike might have followed—December 2015 brought a one-off $50,000 payout. Put differently, Mr Jordan, one suspects, is only too well aware that there is, indeed, an expectation of generosity even if not exaggeration on the part of public servants as and when the next pay increase comes.
The other consideration which one expects Minister Jordan would be aware of is what, unquestionably, is the nexus between government’s expectations of the public service as far as improving the quality of service delivery—and, by extension, growth in the country’s economy—and realistic compensation in terms of wages and salaries. It is, this newspaper believes, high time that we stop conveniently trotting out the line about the importance of the role of the public servant when it suits us, whilst holding forth on the dangers of salary increases (in circumstances where public servants’ salaries bear no realistic relation to the cost of living), when the imperative of an increase confronts. That conundrum can be avoided by carefully managing the relationship between the workers and their representatives, which is not something that we have been accustomed be doing for the longest while.
President Granger himself, quite early in his tenure, not only signalled his own understanding of the importance of the public service to his administration’s vision for the development of the country but also acknowledged the nexus between incentive and effort which, in part, is why the Commission of Enquiry into the public service has been established. Indeed—and without wishing to pre-empt outcomes, it would be surprising if, in its deliberations and more particularly in its findings, the CoI neglects to strongly make the point about the disconnect between the performance expectations of the public service and what, in so many instances, are the completely absurd wage levels. Indeed, the plight of the traditional public servant is exemplified all the more in the disparity between their earnings and those of the so-called contract workers at some levels, whose salaries, unlike those of public servants, are not only subject to conventional negotiations but which, all too often, do not appear to be determined by the same criteria as the minister appears to be applying in his comment on his concern over the likelihood of exaggerated wage demands.
Of course there are limits to the public sector pay levels that a country like ours can afford at this time. The problem is that there are those amongst us who might interpret what Minister Jordan has to say as an attempt to set a tone for government’s posture in the negotiations that ought to precede any increase in public servants wages and salaries. We do not believe that his is the only logic that should be allowed to prevail in the matter. The outcomes should be left to the vicissitudes of negotiations.
