Dear Editor,
One sees published that there will be a highly professional research exercise into what is described as ‘Guyana’s Labour Needs’. It would have been more comforting if it were seen by the Ministry concerned as ‘skills needs’, for ‘skills’ are what are urgently needed to propel productivity across agencies, public and private, moreso in the Public Service. According to the 2022 Budget there exist the following categories of semi/unskilled personnel:
a) Clerical and Office Support
Ministries – 6567
Regional Administrations – 632
b) Semi-Skilled Operatives & Unskilled Ministries – 2914
Regional Administrations – 2095
Making a total of 12,208 aspirants for further training and development. That is not to say that the following category may not be candidates for similar human development:
Other Technical Craft Skilled
Ministries – 3392
Regional Administrations – 3492
6884
At first blush therefore a survey has to be designed to enquire into the possible areas of interest of the above-numbered public servants. But at the other end of the employment spectrum is the chronic stifling of the latter’s longevity since colonial days – at age 55 years – ignored by all political leaders who, in substantive contradiction can perform indefinitely. The fact is, however, that Guyana has the record of instituting the youngest formal retirement age of public servants in CARICOM, and for that matter, the rest of the world – a fact that has been repeatedly mentioned, and continues to be ignored at the most informed levels, albeit in contradiction to several Public Sector Agencies, including the undermentioned of serving 60 years as the formal retirement age:
– Audit Office of Guyana
– Guyana Revenue Authority
– Guyana Sugar Corporation
– Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
– Guyoil
– Guyana National Shipping Corporation
– Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, to name a few.
For that matter GPL has long inherited a retirement legacy of 65 years from the original Canadian owners. The point to be made is about our leader’s resignation, if not indifference, to such a skills loss, and of critical institutional memory – the glaring exception of course being the careful selection and appointment of ‘Contracted Employees’. But perhaps the most urgent attention should be paid to the substantial value of teachers who, at all levels, are required to retire from the Education system at age 55 years. Finally, at the risk of being superfluous (even objectionable to some), the following is an extract from Chapter 6 of the critically overlooked Dr. Lutchman’s Report of The Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service: “Chapter 6: Retirement Age for Public Servants Recommendation No. 64-69
64) That the retirement age for new entrants into the Public Service, and those currently in the Public Service who are below 50 years, be retired on attaining 65 years of age, the option of retiring on attaining 60 years;
65) That pension entitlements be calculated at a maximum of 43 and one-third service years;
66) That Public Servants who are currently below 55 years of age, be allowed the option to retire on attaining 60 years or any time before 65 or on attaining 65 years of age;
67) That no person retiring from the Public Service before attaining the age of 65 years should be employed on contract in an established Public Service position.
68) That the Pensions Act Chapter 27:02 be amended as may be required to provide for higher pensions as a result of the higher retirement age;
69) That consideration be given to increasing the monthly pensions of retired Public Officers, who are in receipt of the minimum pension, to a level which is equal to or closer to the Public Service minimum wage/salary”.
But of course, it would be surprising if any Private Sector employer manages a Pension Scheme of which the retirement age is below 60 years. In relation to all the foregoing hullaballoo it becomes urgently necessary for the current Administration to help in the ‘reinvention’ of the NIS by upgrading the pensionable age of public servants to 60 years so that the latter can better benefit from that Scheme’s calculable pension deliverables. And while the Private Sector must contribute to this worthwhile exercise, this writer’s priority concern is about the several thousands of employees severed from the sugar industry at the end of 2017. They must be the focus of special attention in any survey of ‘labour needs’. In light of all the above, it would be interesting to have access in due course to the specific Terms of Reference of this most strategic human resources project.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
