In a contribution to the matter of the recent negotiations for increases in salaries and conditions of service for public servants, I had expressed the view, in a somewhat general manner, that the approach of the Public Services Association (PSA) was flawed and that the union should make its case based on facts and not on emotion. The union was also advised to take into consideration the possible negative effects of a purely monetary approach on the welfare of its members, present and past.Watson Duke and his executive have been severely criticised by most other union leaders for accepting what, in the opinion of these union leaders, is a "five per cent betrayal" increase. They have also expressed the view that the other non-monetary parts of the package are somewhat inconsequential and are a charade.
It is not my intention in this piece to dwell on the integrity of the quantum of the increase which has been accepted by the PSA. What I would say is that the change in its approach in the negotiations could be taken as a reflection of realism (and perhaps even patriotism), given the need for stability in the country's economy at this time. In this regard, attention is directed to the reference of the salaries dispute to the Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court by the Minister of Finance-a constraint with which the non-Public Service unions do not have to contend.
From the diverse nature of the organisations in the country's economy, it is clear that different criteria ought to be employed in fixing wages and salaries nationally. It is also clear for all to see that the leadership of the PSA was being used by other unions as a "Trojan horse" in their quest to reject a possible five per cent offer by the Chief Personnel Officer (or by other employers, for that mat- ter).
It is hoped here to demonstrate that this carte blanche approach by these non-public sector unions is misplaced and perhaps reflects a misunderstanding of what they ought to have been doing with respect to their own negotiations. These unions ought to be bargaining for their own units based on the situation which applies in a particular industry and the constituent firms therein.Thus the Bank and General Workers' Union should be taking into account the identifiable contribution of its members to the relatively large profits which are being declared by banks-a situation which could not apply in the case of the Public Service.
One major imperative with which the PSA must contend is the national budget, taking into account the fact that nowadays negotiations have tended to, as it were, follow the period for which increases may be due. It follows, therefore, that, upon completion of negotiations, the Minister of Finance would, invariably, be compelled to seek supplementary increases and/or transfers in the national accounts which would already have been approved by Parliament.
The non-public sector unions, apart from those which represent workers in organisations which may be dependent on subventions from the State, do not face this scenario. In this case, privately-owned companies or commercially oriented State-owned bodies, for example Petrotrin and TSTT. It is, therefore, clearly a case of "different strokes for different folks." This must be understood.Theoretically, since labour cost is invariably a major component in the total cost structure of any organisation, its measurement is of paramount importance, for on this would rest a determination of the wages and salaries which an establishment could bear.
While the measurement of labour content and productivity could, to a rather meaningful extent, be arrived at in a market-oriented setting, this is hardly the case in the Public Service where there is scarcely a physically identifiable "product" and where "subjectivity" regarding output inevitably reigns, to a large extent. This is a major imponderable in arriving at levels of salaries and wages which are equitable and are based on merit and ability.This brings me to the matter of the "across-the-board" five per cent which the PSA has accepted.
I have, on a previous occasion, sought to advise against this approach. If for no other reason, an already skewed salary structure is further exaggerated by a single percentage increase; and hence the need for regular regrading of the Public Service salary structure. Here I part company with the PSA as I am of the view that a "disaggregation" of whatever agreed-to salary increase would have been more desirable.
In this country it is now very much a habit that wage negotiations are never ever completed prior to the commencement of the stipulated period for which they apply. This has resulted in what could be termed a "backpay syndrome" when relatively large amounts of money find themselves being offloaded to coincide with well-known periods of high spending, eg at Christmas.
One is doubtful whether, given this habit, the welfare of the average worker is maximised. What is being postulated is a need for both employers and unions to change the cycle of wage and salary negotiations by ensuring that, generally, wage contracts are completed prior to the commencement of a contract period. In this regard, the PSA could set the tone by starting negotiations for the next contract period almost immediately.
In sum, therefore, it is postulated that, given the diverse nature of the T&T economy, it must be recognised that a monolithic approach to wage determination, as seems to be in favour with the umbrella union organisations, is inflexible and is therefore undesirable, given the existence of (a) a classical market-oriented private sector; (b) a State-owned market-oriented sub-sector; (c) a hybrid State-owned/private public utility sub- sector, and finally an overwhelming Public Service.