Dear Editor,
Not so long ago President Ali, during one of his interactions with the press, mentioned concern about ‘some teachers’ whose salaries needed adjustment – in relation to their respective dates of employment. Little did he appear to appreciate how fundamental was the problem which in fact extends to teachers and public servants as a whole. Indeed the misinformation regarding compensation management in the public services has obtained in various administrations for decades – a situation compounded by the system of employment on ‘Contract’ and as ‘Temporaries’, who, like their ‘Pensionable’ counterparts, are equally subject to across-the-board increases.
And while there is currently no agreed periodicity of ‘Temporary’ employment, it is uncertain to how many levels of positions they can be appointed. The same question of periodicity applies to ‘Contracted Employees’ whose presence is much more significant, again without any indicators in Budgets as to the grades of jobs at which they are employed. But the nature of any contract has never been clarified – that is apart from the benefit of gratuity at the rate of 22.5% of salary every six months; while being eligible for across-the-board increases like the pensionable counterparts. Conveniently, no one anywhere has ever questioned the legal implications of this arrangement – obviously because the ‘contract’ document may not have been exposed to appropriate examination.
Notwithstanding, there should be pause for concern to note the following sample of agencies overstaffed with ‘Contracted Employees’:
– Office of the President: 192 of a total of 243
– Office of Prime Minister: 80 of a total of 107
– Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation: 110 of a total of 275
– Amerindian Affairs: 64 of a total of 127
– Agriculture: 149 of a total of 380
– Natural Resources: 95 of a total of 118
– Public Works: 257 of a total of 447
– Labour: 78 of a total of 136
– Culture, Youth and Sports: 130 of a total of 323
The aforementioned should raise questions about:
i. The recruitment process;
ii. The related skills requirements
iii. Performance monitoring and evaluation
iv. Disciplinary system
v. Regularity of attendance
vi. Comparability of compensation,
amongst others, including overall career prospects.
Meanwhile, so far as ‘Temporaries’ are concerned, the outstanding employers are Ministry of Education, with 339, and Ministry of Health, 174. There is no indication at which of the standard five job categories they are appointed: Administrative; Senior Technical; Other Technical and Craft Skilled; Clerical & Office Support; Semi-skilled Operatives & Unskilled. Hopefully, by now the President and colleague decision-makers would appreciate how comprehensive is the issue of irregularity in individual salaries, for regardless of years of service any employee remains at the same point in the scale at which appointed, and later there by new recruits (regardless of value of productivity) – an anomaly known as ‘bunching’, albeit well established over decades. Hopefully, the foregoing will be read by enough affected parties, including unions, to incite a collaborative case being made for a most professional reconstruction of the compensation system that would address performance management issues and fundamental human resources development across all public sector agencies.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
Human Resources Management Consultant
