For the past week, there has been the vexing issue of whether or not the various trade unions will go on strike. The discussions are ongoing. The workers, for their part, insist that increased wages are critical for their survival. The Government has expressed a concern that if wages are to move beyond the five per cent offered, this will lead eventually to negative economic growth. One former union leader has suggested that the unions had handled the whole affair badly and the various Chambers, while acknowledging the fall out that an intended strike may have on the country as a whole, have insisted that increased wages should be tied into performance standards as well as productivity. And they are correct.
Since the country attained independence in 1962, the various committees that were established to look at and eventually recommend reform measures in the public sector, alluded to a number of areas that were dysfunctional. One of the primary areas of concern, however, was the lack of motivation by public servants. The Commissions that were established from 1935–1989, all observed that public servants were generally reluctant to take decisions and matters were simply transferred to the higher authorities. What appeared to be the case from 1935 onwards, then, was a culture that was to a large extent largely informed by the 1935 public service regulation that was revised in 1965. Public servants were of the opinion that a good day's work was based on punctuality, attendance, and making sure that the files were appropriately labelled. The culture which prevailed was that if something was "not broke, it should not be fixed." In all the sectors of this society-in the workplace, in the private sector, in the public sector and even at the university, if a matter is not directly connected with a person's responsibilities, it is simply left to its own devices to be "righted." By and large, it amounts to a case of "waiting for Godot" (This is the name of a book by Samuel Beckett.)
For instance, because mail must be transported by an office attendant, even if a file or mail is to be transferred to a desk no more than two feet away, one must not carry it; one must wait for the office attendant since this is their job.
The waiting, as we all know could be long or sometimes the task will never be accomplished, and it is simply relegated to a dust bin. In such a society as ours, then, it seems therefore appropriate to let the Cepep workers come in at 8 am and leave at 9.30 am after standing and chatting on the side of the road...after all they are single parents simply eking out a "hard" days work for their starving children.
Some people have argued that public servants are among the hardest working employees in the country. Yet, others have suggested that the oil field employees who are the ones who really "bring in the income." And yet others, berate the plight of the Cepep workers, those poor unfortunates comprising mainly single mothers who toil on the way side to "bring in bread" for their children. In other words, there are no "lazy" workers in the entire country. Rather, there are people who are enthusiastic and willing to work, to take responsibilities and who are there to ensure that goods and services are efficiently distributed and delivered. It is amusing to say the least, that when people are speaking about employees or to employees, that the truth must always be couched in diplomatic terms.
For instance, if someone is "lazy" and does not perform, it is not unusual to say to them, that it was not their fault but rather that fault lay with the "system." I was advised, for instance, that one should know "how to speak to employees." Even when the worker fails to carry out their responsibility and the person in charge has to be reprimanded for this, "one must simply grin and bear it." The "right" of the worker must always be taken into consideration and it must prevail. What is amusing is that it is never the case of the "right" of the employer or the "right of the public" or taxpayer who has to foot the bills. It is almost then taboo to discipline or even transfer an employee...the worker is always right. The Chambers are therefore quite correct-policy makers should consider, before they engage in discussions about wages, standards and productivity. As far back as 1935, there were mechanisms for reviewing staff responsibilities. This was referred to as the Staff Reporting System. Over time, however, and understandably, there was a number of criticisms of this system which had been inherited. Accordingly in 1985, the Central Training Unit of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago made an attempt to introduce a Performance Appraisal System.
This system, it was suggested, would appraise staff for the job actually performed. What was missing, though, was the lack of recognition, that what should accompany this staff appraisal system was a Job Evaluation exercise that had first been introduced by Collett and Clapp in 1965. Thus, it was found that while staff in some ministries were provided with training with respect to the implementation of the staff appraisal form, what was lacking was that employees did not really know what they were supposed to do on their desk. There was a lack of job description and desk diaries. Accordingly, in 1991, with his appointment as Minister in the Ministry of Public Administration, Gordon Draper insisted on the reintroduction of a job classification exercise. This exercise was supposed to be concluded within two years. At its conclusion, the exercise was supposed to achieve some of the following measures:
(a) Ensure a consistency of task and responsibilities with respect to the various categories of workers;
(b) Arrive at appropriate standards for all categories of workers;
(c) Ensure that tasks and responsibilities corresponded to similar positions in the private sector.
Thus, the job classification exercise was to form the foundation for the performance appraisal system. Unfortunately, this job classification exercise is still ongoing. The problem, then, is that it is difficult to appraise an employee if there is no appropriate standard. One can argue, then, that the recommendation made by the Chambers will be a long term affair. But this does not have to be so. Obviously, there are huge differences in income levels in the public sector and more particularly so at the level of the contractual workers. What may be in the best interest of both the Government and the employees then is to really examine the introduction of a 'sliding income scale'. There are very good economists in this country who could be invited to take part in this exercise which includes looking at what constitutes a fairly good standard of living for employees at the lower income level and bringing their salaries up to meet this standard. What may then emerge is that there will be a reduction in the gap between the lower income levels and the higher income levels.
This device should, however, not be taken to mean that there should be a resultant decline in merit and achievement. But as many would admit, some positions, particularly those on contract, carry a salary far advance to that of the Prime Minister's salary. What may then be the first priority for Government is to conduct evaluations with respect to the higher paid positions and establish appropriate standards of performance. Based on these standards, revised wages (either upwards or downwards) may then be considered. Above all, though, the Government and the unions should recognise that the outcomes for increased wages is not merely a battle between the union and Government. It concerns all the tax-payers who are the major beneficiaries or losers. Either way, both the union and the Government should be reminded that under the new governance arrangement, there should be compromises and consensus between and among the various stakeholders, namely the Government, the civil society and the private sector. No one body should be involved in a decision which will impact on the society as a whole. The suggestion, then, is to include as many members of the private sector in the ongoing negotiations as well.