Public servant conundrum

Dear Editor,

No one yet seems to have noticed the apparent state of schizophrenia shared between the contesting parties – namely the government, on the one hand, and the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) on the other, regarding the announced negotiation of the quantum of increase on salaries of public servants.

Subject to correction, information is that the first party is actually represented by public servants, while the other is led by the Head of the GPSU, who just happens to be a member of the Public Service Commission – which appoints public servants.

It is an interesting construct wherein appointed public officers are contesting with a delegation, a member of whom is authorised to appoint, promote them and terminate their services.

How is it then that the former is committed to rejecting, neutralizing, or modifying the demands made (if not instructions given) by their virtual employer to pay them better?

Does some form of insubordination inhere in a situation in which the putative ‘employer’ is being denied the otherwise acknowledged constitutional authority? At the same time, is the employee in turn left to grapple with the moral dilemma of denying him/herself more and better conditions of employment?

The foregoing perspective, rather than intending to be categorical, is in fact intended to encourage a debate on the rationality of a process, wherein normally either party to the wage and salary negotiations is expected to contest the issues with a clear conscience that is if the latter exist.

Each would have to be somewhat amoral not to indulge in justifiable self-examination.

Yours faithfully,

E B John