Dear Editor,
With great respect Mr George N Cave (‘Is the leader of the GPSU an employer because he sits on the Public Service Commission?’ SN, July 24) is absolutely right when he admits that “Now I do not know enough about the matter.”
He then proceeds into a trend of non-sequiturs starting with a quote from the Guyana Revenue Authority which is unrelated to the employer status of the President of the GPSU.
On the other hand, this correspondent can legitimately claim to have monitored annually the activities of the Teaching Service Commission, for example, through the vacancies it advertises, and the criteria it sets for them to be filled. Examination of the national budgets has only referred to the Teaching Service Commission in terms of its salary structure. The presentations therein clearly disaggregate that commission from the Ministry of Education (MoE); but on the other hand, highlight the palpable differentiation between the two salary structures, the TSC of 21 grades and the MoE of 14 PSC grades displaying a glaring discrimination against teachers’ pay, reinforcing the statutory fact (not an “opinion”) that the ministry is not the employer.
But to return to the disconnection between the reference to the GRA‘s authority and the status of the GPSU’s leader as an employer, a more focused examination (vis-à-vis current thinking) will support the fact that the Public Service Commission has always been the constitutional authority for approving the employment of public servants, in respect of certain categories of whom, such authority is delegated to ministries/agencies.
Since the PSC is unquestionably (and historically has been) the employer of public servants specifically, how can any of its members deny individual responsibility as an employer?
In any case, however, all the above is subsidiary to the more substantive point made, that is employer or not the GPSU cannot claim the legal status of representing the non-public servants employed under the Revenue Authority Act.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
