Dear Editor,
There is an interesting development reported in SN of March 23 of the Government of Trinidad & Tobago having discussions with the National Union of Government and Federated Workers and the Public Service Association about raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 years. It would appear that the substantive concern is what is described as ‘the increasing disparity between contribution income and benefit expenditure’ as revealed in the most recent Actuarial Report on that country’s National Insurance Scheme (NIS). One expects that it is recognisable that Guyana’s NIS must have been suffering a similar deficit experience despite the absence of any publication of a comparable Actuarial Report. For the gap should be quite obvious – between the retirement age of 55 years for public servants, and the eligibility age of 60 years for payments – a critical contribution gap of five years. It is not as if this colonial retirement age (55 years) issue has not been raised with several administrations since the institution of the NIS in 1969, even though the related Union/s appear indifferent to:
i. increasing the working life of the public servant
ii. a) the fact that several Public Sector agencies observe a pensionable age of sixty years, including: Office of the Auditor General; GGMC, GRA, Guyoil, GWI, Guyana Sugar Corporation, and more.
b) that all Caricom countries observe a retirement of 60 years and over, for colleague public servants
iii. critically, the inability of our NIS to raise the current level of pension payments
It does not appear that either the respective Administrations or the Union/s have thought of the substantial institutional memory that is lost to related Ministries/ Agencies on departures at age 55, particularly at a time when there is a plethora of organisational changes due to external interventions. On the contrary there appears to be the preference for (short term) ‘Contracted Employees’ who enjoy bountiful gratuity every six months. In the milieu is this most fundamental subversion of the principle and procedure of human resources management, whereby these employees enjoy the same salary increases as ‘permanent’ and ‘pensionable’ Public Servants. (It would be illogical for their contracts to include such a provision). So that once again the submission is being made that it is not too late for working life in the Guyana Public Service to be extended to sixty (60) years – all the more comparable with our Caribbean counterparts who are in turn looking to Guyana for leadership in so many other areas, (none of which can be fulfilled without the appropriate ‘human development’).
But there is another important component of the developmental process that has been inhumanely ignored – Performance Evaluation – an exercise that was institutionalised to be conducted at least annually. Outcomes of such a structured exercise include: The identification of performers at best, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory levels respectively, and their being rewarded accordingly with ‘increments’ – a terminology (like the process) hardly known to decision-makers and employees, over the last two decades at least. So that there is very little information released about ‘promotions’ (based on performance). The releases are restricted to ‘appointments’ so that in the current context of ‘human development’ is inherent the very contradictory non-recognition of any employee’s contribution. However productive the latter might be, he/she is accorded the same percentage increase on salary as the most delinquent counterpart.
All of this makes the maintenance of ‘salary scales’ a derisibly flawed exercise, since everyone remains at the same point in the applicable ‘scale’, after the imposition of increases, so often debatable. Who then amongst the faithful public servants can go home at the end of any working day (or year) and declare proudly to a family of having been rewarded for being better than the rest – an emptiness not reconcilable with the fundamental spirituality of ‘Human Development’, with which one should retire, preferably at age 60 years. (It is perhaps now better understood why Personnel Officers in the Public Service cannot be upgraded to Human Resources Managers/Officers).
Sincerely,
E.B. John
Human Resources Management and
Organisational Development
Advisor