PSA hits back at Remuneration Authority ^Featured

We thank the Chair of the RA for replying to our press release. Lets look at your reply so that we can give you some guide to improve the RA reports and for the public to understand because they do not see the reports themselves to understand what you and us are talking about.

1. Remuneration & Benefits recommended are “UNFAIR” is “FALSE:

It is very important that you look at the work that you do and the examples that we brought up about ow unfair the recommended remunerations are before that our allegation is “FALSE”.

How is it that you call the following remunerations & benefits below FAIR? If you call this fair than there is something seriously wrong with the current RA Members and should be changed asap!

Fairness of salaries to taxpayers can only be determined if employees are doing their job well. If you recommended a good salary to an employee and he/she does not do his job well, it is not fair to taxpayers. If you give an employee very little pay and does his/her work very well, again it is not fair to taxpayers as you are underpaying someone who does good. So, your statement that remunerations by law should be fair to taxpayers.

Remunerations should be fair to employees in accordance to their job responsibilities only. But these remunerations are UNFAIR when it is inconsistent amongst the same positions and MOST UNFAIR if someone with less job responsibilities have higher pay than other who have much more job responsibilities.

Parliament VIP Driver: $22,538+4,508=$27,046
Parliament Driver: $22,538+4,508=$27,046

Palace Office VIP Driver: $12,321+1,232=$13,554
Palace Office Driver: $ 8,705+ 871=$ 9,576

HM Arm Forces Driver: $6,037+604=$6,641
HM Arm Forces Driver: $5,460+546=$6,006

PMO VIP Driver: $8,222+822=$9,044
PMO Driver: $7,200+720=$7,920

Foreign Affairs VIP Driver: $11,161+1,116=$12,277
Foreign Affairs Driver$7,200+720=$7,920

Assistant Teacher Graduate(TCA): $26,959;
Head Teacher G11: $25,201;
Veterinary Officer: $24,687;
Head Teacher G1: $26,813;
Band Master (TCA): $23,551
Accounting Officer: $22,415

Parliament Security Officer $18,006+3,613=$21,679

HM Security Officers from HMAF: $4,780+478=$5,258

HMAF new recruits used for the Palace$4,780+478=$5,258

PMO Security Officer: $6,400+640=$7,040

THS Security: $9,335+934=$10,288

CDU Security: $6,475+647=$7,122

Assistant Teacher Graduate:$21,280

Parliament Office Cleaner $18,006+3,613=$21,679

Palace Office (Handynam):$ 7,673+ 767=$ 8,440

PMO Cleaner: $6,671+667=$7,338

Ministry Cleaner: $6,671+667=$7,338

Band Master (HMAF): $16,231

Parliament Grounds Man: $18,006+3,613=$21,679 $

Palace Office Grounds Man: 9,355+ 936=$10,291

PMO Grounds Man: $6,400+640=$7,040

Ministry Handyman: $6,400+640=$7,040

Senior Assistant Teacher Diplomate: $18,227;

Assistant Teacher Diplomate: $17,609;

(sorry table was not able to be uploaded)

2. Lack of Consultation is “FALSE”

It does not mean that the RA went to all the Ministries and met with the CEO and Senior officers means that all employees were consulted. Even majority CEOs said in their letter to the Chair of PSC last week for consultation to be inclusive (i.e. to include all their staff):

“To note that the RA conducted consultations with CEOs on the Second Remuneration Report September 2015 was insufficient to address the specific concerns of each line Ministry and Departments”

“Request the RA to extend the consultation with CEOs to be more inclusive to include all staff by ministry and departments including others as appropriate to be completed by the 15th of April 2016, however, to also note that the Remuneration Review Sub-Committee established under THOGMA will work in collaboration with the PSC to confirm the scope of this consultation.”

In the one consultation with PSA, RA only informed us how their work was going to be done. We had requested for a presentation of their findings including non-Public Service ministries and this was not done.

Given the above, our comments that there was lack of consultation stands as it was and it is TRUE!.

3. The “Sneak Preview” of Parliament Staff Salaries is deliberately Misleading:

The table above are the recommended new salaries taken from the RA First Report, June 2014. There is nowhere in that report that recommended any lower salaries for the staff in Parliament. In the policy decision made by RA, they had noted that positions are overpaid but there are no recommendations for lower salaries, they had recommended the same salaries like everyone else. They should have written the lower salaries she meant. Hence, statement made by PSA stands and is TRUE!.

4. Comparison made with the Palace Office and Prime Minister’s Office is “FALSE”:

One has to be stupid not to be able to compare the salaries of the drivers in Parliament, Palace Office & Prime Minister’s Office. See table above. PSA’s comparison stands & is TRUE!

5. Salaries of the Town and District Officers are at the bottom of the Scale is FALSE & Misleading:

Again, unless we are reading the recommendations from a different report, but 7,560-11,340 is at the bottom of the scale for the type of work they are doing. Lowest of the scale are the cleaners/caretakers is $7,123.

NOTE: PSA did not support the establishment of the RA as it will only impose further cost to Gov’t as we all know the salaries paid these people in the RA are very high and they are only part time. This exercise should have been done by the PSC for all employees who are paid from the public purse. This will not only achieve consistency across all employees but it will also build up the capacity of the staff in PSC.

With due respect to the RA, we senior officera in Gov’t knows that the work done was not that much. They may talk about the “Hay Methods”, but all the RA did was merging of 1 or 2 or 3 levels from the former salary scale. This is also reported in their report. This a very easy job compared to how much the consultants in the RA were paid. Again, the staff of PSC could have done this job at no cost to Gov’t.

Twice in the last 5 years, the PSA had recommended to Cabinet for the RA to be abolished. We again will put up to Gov’t for the RA to be abolished and all the remaining work to be given to PSC to finish so that we don’t waste any more money on a work that could have been done at no cost at all.

6. HR Officers do not know how to implement the PMS is FALSE!

This confirmed that RA do not know the Public Service at all! We do not assume things as we have asked majority CEOs themselves... even majority of the CEOs do not knows how to implement the PMS! Again our recommendation for time to train the HR Officers including CEOs stands!

7. Training of PMS needs 4-7 month is TRUE!

At least we are agreeing on something! But, we need to ensure that the anomalies (concerns) in the reports and complete the work done (including Town & District Officers) before we implement the new salary scales.

It is best for the remaining work to be carried out by the PSC so there is no extra cost in paying the RA which is needed to be abolished. Then conduct the training on the PMS before implementing the new salary scales in July 2017.

8. $5m from World Bank:

The $5m set aside in the Budget was for implementation of the new salary scales in July 2016. We fully understand this. As the RA had recommended for majority of the salaries to remain as they were, this estimate of $5m was too much.

What we were referring to is the World Bank project as were informed during our negotiations with Gover’s that will be used to pay for the RA for their consultancy fees of those employed in the RA.

Again, as mentioned above in No. 5, we recommend that the RA be abolished and the remaining work be transferred to the PSC to complete.

9. Majority of the CEO are deferral the Remuneration pending proper consultation is FALSE:

The Chair of the RA is contradicting herself here and what she said in point No. 2. What the CEOs had said confirms that there was lack of consultation hence the implementation of the report should be deferred until proper consultation which is inclusive (meaning all the employees) to be undertaken.

We know this will take a longer time than the remaining 3 months to July plus the need to train the HR Officers on the PMS which will require 4-6 months.

This is why we had recommended for the implementation to be done in July 2017. Lets not rush things or we will make a mess and fools out of ourselves.

10. The concerns on the two reports have to be resolved before they are submitted to Cabinet. This will prevent what had happened in 2005 when Cabinet approved the recommended salary structures back then. We all want the anomalies of 2005 and the concerns on these 2 reports to be resolved before they are submitted to Cabinet for consideration. This is the first time we have seen the reports and raised concerns.

The RA Reports are not with Cabinet yet, at least the Second Report. They are still with the RA and the PSC. As we mentioned above in No. 10, we wanted to make sure that our concerns and the anomalies of 2005 are resolved before the reports are submitted to Cabinet for consideration. Last Wednesday we were told that PSC had made a submission to the Prime Minister as Minister responsible for the PSC for the RA report to be submitted to Cabinet when none of the concerns have even been considered by the RA or PSC including the concerns of the CEOs!

If the RA have not completed its work (Town & District Officers, Parliament, CEOs concerns), why pushed to submit the reports to Cabinet last Wed?

11. The RA should understand that PSA has the right to represent our members who are public servants. Our members pay subscription fees to employ full time staff to represent them as they don’t have the time to negotiate with Gov’t or to look at the RA report. The PSA (staff and our Executive Board who are Senior Public Servants) do take a lot of time to examine the RA reports on behalf of our members and also as Taxpayers.

If the RA thinks that the position of PSA is not representative of all public servants, then why is it that when PSA successfully negotiated the COLA for our members that all public servants and other non-public servants employees in Government also gets the COLA?

The voices or concerns of other public servants who are not members of PSA could only reach Government through the consultations with the RA which has not conducted properly.

Some of our members informed us that they have asked their CEOs to see the reports but were told that the RA had forbidden the CEOs to give the reports or the new salary structures the employees or they would be subjected to law as the reports are confidential. This confirmed that none of the employees except the CEOs have been consulted on the new salary structures!

RA should also understand that PSA Members are Taxpayers too as they also do pay tax, and again as Taxpayers, our Members do not have the time to sit down and examine the RA reports. If the RA wants the Taxpayers to make position of their reports they should have taken their reports for consultation with the people. Their opinion does not represent the Taxpayers’ opinions. The RA reports are their own opinions.

12. The PSA Secretary General in December 2015 has emailed the RA and asked for consultation but was informed by RA Secretary that the Chair had decline our request. We again asked for their findings to be sent to us for comments and was again declined. Why should we approach the RA when we have been declined twice?

We had requested in December 2015 to PSC and Cabinet to defer the RA reports for consultation for implementation in July 2016. We had waited to be invited but no invitation came. The RA had only consulted the CEOs on a one-one basis and also told them not to give the reports to the employees as conveyed to us by two CEOs

We had asked the Chair of PSC on the 13th January 2016 for consultation on the reports but not invitation was received. We heard last Wednesday that the reports are to be submitted to Cabinet for consideration and we had reacted accordingly to ensure our Members concerns would be raised and resolved before the reports are submitted to Cabinet.

Since were declined for consultation and the fact that the PSC had declined last week to consider our grievance on the unfair application of the Public Service (Disciplinary Procedures) Regulations we had no choice but to use our rights under Section 12 of the Public Service (Grievances & Dispute Procedures) Regulations hence triggering the process that may in an industrial action if dispute is not resolved. During this process, it provides amble time for Gov’t to discuss our grievances to be resolved. It also gives amble time for the members of PSA who are public servants whether they would like to go on strike if the issues are not resolved.

13. We have not comment on this except the fact that there are concerns that has to be resolved in the RA reports first before it is implemented. There are also issues relating to the successful implementation of the new salary scale, i.e. training of the HR Officers and the CEOs on how to implement the PMS so that the new salary scales would be implemented properly. For this, given there is only 3 months before July 2016, it would be wiser to defer the implementation of the new salary structures to July 2017 whilst the concerns are resolved and training of the PMS be undertaken.