Dear Editor,
Quite apart from the break in the trend of timing (usually in December) of the announcement and payout of across-the-board increases to public servants, and members of the disciplined forces, the 2011 announcing of an 8% across-the-board increase to the named categories, raises at this particular juncture a number of interesting questions.
But before pursuing these, one must first remark on the thoughtfulness in also giving teachers an uplift of 3% – all retroactive to January 1, 2011 to create the illusion of equitability at this time, with the award to ‘public servants.’
It is well understood that, quite legitimately, these personnel will be paid from the public coffers. What catches one’s attention (and breath), however, is the simultaneous announcement of approval of an increase of 3% ‘to be paid to employees of the Guyana Sugar Corporation’ (according to SN of November 4, 2011). The ramifications of this decision will be addressed separately later on.
The award of an across-the-board increase to ‘public servants’ in particular has become sufficiently routine, as to be well anticipated by its recipients. Interestingly, however, the Guyana Teachers’ Union, not many months ago boasted as a major achievement their having negotiated a 5% increase – which was substantively different from what is now purported to be a voluntary across-the-board increase. The playing field in this instance therefore is not as equitable as it may appear at first blush. However, the one consistent element has been the adjustment of the respective salary scales for both groups of employees, ie, bona fide ‘public servants’ and teachers.
In the meantime, amongst ‘public servants’ there exists a significant proportion of ‘contract employees’ whose contracts are renewable annually and include a gratuity provision of 22.5% payable on salary every six months. These persons are known to be eligible for the standard across-the-board increase, payable to ‘public servants’ for the simple reason that they are appointed to identifiable established positions.
Less certain is the treatment of another group of employees who are contracted to work in the many donor-funded projects located in several agencies. In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary one must assume their exclusion from this particular ‘incentive.’
One must also assume, this time on the basis of recorded evidence, that the respective salary scales of established ‘public servants’ will be appropriately adjusted by the percentage increase announced. Amongst the milieu of speculation one must next enquire of the relative eligibilities of those persons who are employed in some forty or more statutory bodies in the rest of the public sector, named as follows in the Estimates approved by the National Assembly:
Environmental Protection Agency, Guyana Energy Agency, Guyana Lands and Surveys
Commission, Guyana Office for Investment, Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Frequency Management Unit, Integrity Commission, National Parks Commission, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Guyana Gold Board, Public Utilities Commission, Bureau of Statistics, Ethnic Relations Commission, Guyana Revenue Authority, National Data Management Authority, Audit Office of Guyana National Drainage and Irrigation Board, Pesticide and Toxic Chemicals Control Board, Guyana Forestry Commission, Guyana School of Agriculture, Mahaica/Mahaicony/ Abary Agricultural Development Authority, National Agriculture Research Institute, Guyana Livestock Development Authority, New Guyana Marketing Corporation, Guyana National Bureau of Standards, Guyana Tourism Authority, Cheddi Jagan International Airport Corporation, Demerara Harbour Bridge Corporation, Guyana Civil Aviation Authority, Transport and Harbours Department, Maritime Administration Department, National Library, Government Technical Institute, Kuru-Kuru Cooperative College, President’s College, University of Guyana, National Trust, National Sports Commission, Central Housing and Planning Authority, Dependants Pension Fund, Hope Coconut Industries Ltd. It would seem a rather sensitive time to exclude these groupings of ‘public (sector) servants’ even though they (correctly) would have been excluded in the past.
Caught up amongst them are those employees who only earlier this year 2011, transitioned from the Ministry of Agriculture to the semi-autonomous Guyana Livestock Development Authority; according to the relevant legislation they are no longer ‘public servants’ effective from the ‘appointed day.’
By far the sweetest joint in the pre-season harvest relates to ‘the employees of the Guyana Sugar Corporation,’ which noteworthily is not listed among the statutory bodies (nor for that matter are Guyana Oil Company and Guyana Power and Light Inc).
As is understood the 5% increase awarded ‘sugar workers’ earlier in 2011 was an intervention made to forestall a looming negotiating deadlock – between GAWU and the management of GuySuCo. This was in fact an addition to the 2010 increase of 5% which was touted as a one-off payment, but was subsequently converted to a permanent pay rise.
But now the recent announcement has clearly equated ‘the employees’ (including management employees) of GuySuCo with the status of ‘public servants’ and ‘teachers.’ (They either are all target oriented performers or they all are not.) While in the latter cases the decision significantly by-passed the related unions (GPSU and GTU), it would appear that more substantively, as in the case of the recent severance payment, the Board and management of GuySuCo were not party to the latest decision. To add to their confusion must be the eligibility status of those sugar workers who were effectively severed from employment earlier this year.
Another possible concern of some observers is the implication of a retroactive increase on the cost of production which, indications are, has again fallen. They may even contemplate the proposed payout as further taxpayers’ subsidy to GuySuCo.
Cane farmers whose canes are harvested by estates must be wondering whether they in turn would be penalised by related increased charges.
One senior official is reported to have mooted the idea of the private sector mimicking the example of the ‘public service.’ His pronouncement must have sent anticipatory waves through Guyana Water Inc, of which he is a board member.
In the meantime it would be interesting to see how the private sector would react to such an assertive statement. But then the particular union officer may well be aware of their disposition to compliance.
The foregoing recital is no way intended as a carping criticism. Hopefully it will raise the consciousness of human resources managers and officers to some of the ramifications of compensation management in practice, and its possible relevance to governance.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
