QUOTE FROM DIANA THEODORE:
“Am
I hearing this correctly that the civil servants still get paid while on
strike? What planet is St Lucia on? I thought that workers paid union dues so
that if a strike was called they would receive strike pay from the union.
Whoever heard of the employer paying strike pay. Please tell me I'm wrong” -
DT, Choiseul, St. Lucia
Introduction
The
Civil Service Association (CSA), in its attempt to wrestle with gov’t in the
pursuit of a 9.5% wage hike, will today enter its second week of strike action.
The CSA’s ongoing strike action is in many ways a sequel to a protracted
series of industrial action rocking the nation since February which started just before our 34th Independence anniversary and continued with a
spate of meetings and sick outs under the TUF umbrella, as public sector unions
sought a whopping 16% pay hike.
Eventually,
the industrial action culminated in a lone strike action by the CSA - the only
trade union that has been left out in the cold, locking horns with the Government
Negotiation Team (GNT) over a request for pay increase of 9.5%. Meanwhile, all the
other sister trade unions have accepted a 4% pay increase with conditions. It
must be noted that the CSA at one point requested 4.5% with conditions but when
the GNT turned it down, it suddenly reverted to 9.5% or nothing.
It
is obvious that the CSA's “9.5% fixation” has run it into “trouble after
trouble” with almost every sector of society, even including members of the (seemingly)
disintegrating TUF. By its demonstrable lack of interest in a rapprochement,
the CSA has brought about much unnecessary disharmony and protraction in the negotiations,
making it appear that the entire process has degenerated into an
irrational skirmish between the GNT and the CSA. At the moment, the extent of “collateral
damage” to the CSA itself and the state generally has not been properly
assessed. Suffice it to say, that there will be collateral damage and despite
the vociferousness of its PR machinery, the CSA seems to be losing its grip as the GNT continues to remain solid in its position.
 |
| IS DAVE FACING A DISASTER? |
My
own initial assessment is the long and meandering episode of industrial action
by CSA seemed to have taken a substantial toll on its intellectual resources
and credibility. To add insult to injury, the UWP has now entered the picture as
a fraternal buddy, expressing marginal support and solidarity as well as propagating
misinformation about the arrival of a shipment of tear gas on island.
It
is obvious that the negotiations reached an endpoint since the GNT's offer of
4%. Indeed, in the public eye, the offer of 4% seemed a fait accompli which only the CSA has rejected. Notwithstanding, it is
encouraging that in its latest overture to return to the table, a modicum of
rationality seems to have returned to its head; however, one finds it difficult
to reconcile that hint of “an olive branch” and overtures with its express intention to
continue with strike action today. The whole thing is now beginning to look
like an ego trip with a political agenda that is not so hidden.
Whatever the case may be, the
country must think and act responsibly and overlook that ego trip! Government
must accept the overture to talk and use the opportunity to put new proposals
that will benefit both the workers and the state on the table. At this point in
the stalemate, a sublime measure of reciprocity is required to achieve a
meaningful breakthrough solution. In this article, I propose a “framework” to
end the current strike action and to return the country back to work! I argue
that government should award the public servants their 9.5% pay request but
"with conditions". One of the conditions being a guarantee that 9.5%
will translate to proportional increase in economic growth. The rationale for
this position is also explained.
Where is the solidarity?
It
is clear that the CSA under its leadership has lost its bearing and we need to
help it find its way again. It’s definitely not the same powerful and principled CSA which was
headed by Gabriel "Coco" Charles, Calixte George, David Demacque,
Kingsley St. Hill or Joseph Dosserie! The CSA has lost its axis and it is losing
friends rapidly as it degenerates into a mere a relic of the powerful trade
union it used to be; and now, it is more and more beginning to look like a political tool. It’s also noteworthy that, up to this point, I haven't
heard a single message of solidarity or support from any member of the local,
regional or international trade union fraternity; only from the UWP and a
couple of cronies.
Shooting in the foot
Apparently,
in its desperate pursuit of an unreasonable 9.5 - 16% wage increase, the CSA's
back and forth skirmishes have not only hurt them but moreso our tottering
economy. It has more than “exposed itself to the elements” and in the process
has uncharacteristically crouched in every conceivable posture – some of them unwarranted
- to convince stakeholders that it deserves an exorbitant salary increase way
above what the country can afford. What’s probably even more puzzling to me is
the introduction of its first Vice President (Mr Pierre) as the economist – I assume
– present its “economic argument”; but, its passing real strange that I have
not heard a single credible and coherent economic argument from the honourable
gentlemen to substantiate the CSA case - only extraneous scenarios filled with
emotion and devoid of economic logic or sense. The CSA is almost shooting
itself in the foot.
First pillars: VAT, inflation and
consultants
To
put the matter in logical perspective, let’s profile the chronicle of the CSA's
multiplicity of shifting positions over time. Its initial overtures were generally
of a “politico-economic” nature focusing on VAT, inflation and government’s
top-heavy consultancies as the main pillars of its case. Indeed, I was shocked
by the preponderance of misconceptions and illogic that circumscribed the
arguments about VAT, even more so by the executing and implementing civil
service agencies vested with the responsibilities for the implementation and
oversight for the tax. I was even more
appalled by the first VP’s attempt to exonerate the civil service and put the
“locus of control” for all the implementation "evils" and anomalies
exclusively on the private sector and/or government. That angle was largely unfair
and illogical because of the fact that the civil service is government's
regulatory mechanism for consumer affairs. I winced at that desperate
pseudo-argument and asked “Is there a need for a consumer affairs and price
control department in government if they demonstrably shirk their critical
responsibility for regulatory oversight and protection to the consumer?”
Second pillar: Water Tariff increase
Another
seeming centre-piece in the CSA argument in their battle for a wage increase
was the announcement of WASCO's proposal for an increase in water tariffs. As
soon as WASCO announced the consideration of a proposed 60% tariff increase,
the CSA like the malfini immediately
pounced on it and made it a major platform to justify its the wage increase
request. Strangely, that centre-piece seemed to have fizzled out with time.
Third Pillar: Discrimination
Then
came the acceptance of GNT's wage offer by the PWA and the domino effect which
followed. The CSA was apparently wounded and driven into a corner by the domino
effect. It suggested that Government was
“discriminatory” in the offer of conditions to other TUF member unions by
awarding them better allowances/benefits. That seemed to have soured them to the
point where it caused them to “up their ante” from 4.5% with benefits (which was turned down by the
GNT) to a straight 9.5% - a claim they have yet to sufficiently justify in either
qualitative or quantitative terms.
CSA and representation
Lately,
the wild swinging for 9.5% has been directed at the private sector, blaming it
for price gouging and other related offenses. That buck-passing raises three
fundamental questions: (1) when will the civil servants accept responsibility
for the duties they are paid to do to protect the public? (2) Are they ready
for that responsibility anyway? And even more importantly, (3) when will that adolescent
type trade unionism end?
Two
additional issues also arise: Firstly, was the CSA ever prepared for
negotiations? Secondly, does its leadership have the capacity to present an
effective case on behalf of its membership? In the light of the meandering and
posturing, I believe these are fair issues which beg for enlightenment. My own
frank opinion is, the CSA might have sold themselves short.
In
its effort to catch up, the CSA reminds me of the proverbial drowning man
grabbing for any straw which comes its way. And that takes me to a new issue
they have of late factored in the negotiation equation, namely, the public
service workers who earn $950/month. The 1st VP claimed that with an
award of 4%, those workers would receive a measly $3 monthly increase in
salary. My calculations have shown otherwise: A 4% increase would amount to $38
(4% of $950 = $38); not $3! Should we assume that the 1st VP’s math
is a logical application of the CSA’s “negotiation calculus”? I would hate to
entertain that view but I can’t run away from its plausibility.
But
let’s go further and ask: were the CSA ever serious about the category of
workers who earn $950/month beyond lip service? And if this were the case, then
why didn’t it negotiate using a mechanism to address that anomaly? It is
noteworthy that with the 4% award, persons at the top of the salary scale will
get a pay increase in the vicinity of $300 a month or over 700% more than the
worker earning $950/month. Why didn’t the CSA - like the police, teachers and
nurses - negotiate more smartly on behalf of those workers? Apparently, it went
into negotiations without a plan to benefit its lesser members.
Preferential treatment
The
CSA is crying wolf and now seeking a “preferential” - or is it an
"executive" - 9.5% increase; but will it solve the wide gap between
the “top-heavy” civil service and the $950/monthly paid workers at the bottom.
Absolutely no!
Let’s
see what will happen if the GNT were to agree to that 9.5% wage demand. The
average CSA top executive (like the president) would now walk away with a
spanking $665 monthly increase but the worker earning $950/month would only net
a measly $90.25 monthly. Does this scenario give the CSA any moral authority to
talk about equity?
Tottering angle
The
CSA machinery evidently remains at the same tottering angle that it was at the
beginning of the negotiation process; if anything, its position has become more
precarious, as it is now hanging between the devil of its own intransigent
indiscretion and the deep blue sea of increasing negative public opinion!
Based
on my graph of expectations, I project the trend of irrationality and dilemma to
continue to move upward as the strike continues into Week 2. The projected
output or outcome can be nothing more but the pursuit of ego enhancement to
compensate for the proliferation of evident deficiencies and to seek to prove a
point to their counterparts in the TUF and detractors.
Whatever
the outcomes during this week, the bottom line remains that the CSA has
mismanaged the negotiation process at every turn. It has caused the process to
degenerate almost irretrievably into a kind of senseless confrontational
skirmish between itself on one hand and the GNT, the private sector, the
general public and even sections of the media on the other hand. Now, it’s
trying to catch up with the other TUF members and it must have felt that the
best way to do it is by striking. However, in the current economic environment
a strike was certainly not the strategically right move. Secondly, the CSA workers
have been pursuing industrial action for 4 weeks and they may be coming down
with fatigue and illness. With the thunder gone, hope dissipating away,
negative public opinion growing and the economy slipping further and further
into decline, persisting with the strike isn't only an ill-advised but equally
a fatal move.
The new paradigm
Since
the negotiation paradigm is "increase + conditions", perhaps, then it
may be time for gov’t to join that paradigm and agree to award the civil
servants their request with conditions. Firstly, since the CSA has claimed that
the civil service drives the economy, then govt can award its members the 9.5%
wage increase with conditions.
I
propose the first condition should be a guarantee that the wage increase shall
translate into a 9.5% growth in the economy. Because the paradigm is new, a
number of major changes will be necessary to facilitate the paradigm-shift. One
of those changes will be to throw away the current framework of performance
assessments which guarantees every civil servant excellent appraisals and
replace it with a different assessment framework. (Check the files of every civil servant and
despite allegations low productivity, nobody in the public service fails.
Everybody enjoys excellent appraisals.)
Secondly,
I propose we stop the Public Service from interviewing, recommending,
appointing and appraising fellow civil servants. I understand there is a Public Service
Commission which acts on the recommendation based on appraisals by HODs. I
suggest we begin to outsource those responsibilities to an independent private
entity (IPE) which better understands the economy, productivity and efficiency.
I also suggest that the (IPE) formulates key performance areas as well as
performance indicators to form part of the new assessment framework to
determine the economic impact of the performance of the civil service. Hence,
the entire country will see the measurable returns on investments by the civil
service and how do those returns translate to growth and wealth, the proceeds
of which we can use part thereof to fund their wage bill.
