Restore the appraisal of individual performance for awarding of public service increments

In the first place, the generations who joined the then Colonial Civil Service in the 1950s, had to be certified medically fit before appointment. Normally, entry level was as a Temporary Clerk, whose confirmation was dependent on movement upwards of ‘seniors’ on what was then a Civil Service Staff List, which was published annually. Such progression could take up to one year or more. The complementary annual event included the appraisal of individual performance and being awarded an increment within the applicable scale. There were occasions when one heard of colleagues receiving ‘double increments’. Interestingly, there was no related personal communication at the time – like an interview, say. One was simply advised through the actual increase in basic salary.

Only a few of us would have survived those days. Hardly any of the decisionmakers of the last three decades, at least, would have experienced public servants being medically examined as a prerequisite for employment. One wonders, also, whether teachers were/are subject to similar examination. (Incidentally, this pandemic situation should make medical test results a priority condition of employment). One does not hear of vaccination, even of ‘Contracted Employees’ – a category of public servant that is not pensionable; but benefit from 22.5% gratuity on applicable salary every six months. What is interesting is, that despite the salary at which he/she is contracted, presumably for an agreed periodicity, the latter also benefit from the arbitrary annual acrossthe-board increases, same as their ‘permanent’ pensionable counterparts – a contradiction in terms.

Contrast this construct with what is euphemistically described as a ‘benefit’ of say 7% annual salary increase for the pensionable public servant – incorrectly made applicable to ‘Contracted Employees’. But the euphemism is in fact upgraded to a constipated level when one notes that the current range of the fourteen (14) salary scales is effectively increased by the very 7%. So that being permanent means exactly that the public servant remains at the same point in an adjusted scale. For example, regardless of years of service, those at the minimum of the scale remain there, and are then joined by new recruits at that salary level – resulting in a fundamental inequity known in compensation management as ‘Bunching’ – an anomaly which drew focused attention in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service of 2016, but which appeared to have been overlooked since.

The more thoughtful (who are not ‘Contracted Employees’) must keep asking themselves why is there this indulgence in the myth of salary scales, unutilised for decades by a sequence of under-informed administrations? This steadfast pattern of political decisionmaking over the years has resulted in a fundamental demoralisation of the individual public servant as a human being; as protractedly, there is no comparative recognition between one’s contribution and that of any counterpart. The

psychological demoralisation must be profound. Not only does it stifle incentive, but moreso, makes it difficult to aspire to a sense of self-respect, and at the end of the working day hoping to go home to a family and boast of what one has achieved and the recognition earned. Who is there to assure this human being that he/she is more than a ‘servant’? Not even the representative unions have been able to articulate this fundamental sense of being under-valued.

Such a sense of worthlessness is equally applicable to teachers, who every year, see published adulation of their students’ productivity, all the more remarkably contrasting with the articulate, insensitive silence of the value of their own contribution. This is one group of public servants whose performance can be measured by peers, parents, students, their ministerial employers, and critically, the communities in which they work. Yet, there is the determined neglect of the fact that these most visible producers in the Public Service, who determine the quality of future contributors to an increasingly challenging environment, to a persistently more competitive economy, are overlooked. For example, it continues to defy logic that the highest grade of Head Teacher, say at Queen’s, Bishops’, and Cyril Potter College – is on a fixed salary for life. (Simply no scale) – a disillusionment tolerated by their union.

More demanding professionally, and certainly more challenging of our survival individually and communally, must be the nation’s medical practitioners, moreso in these pandemic times. Many of us keep asking why their contributions are not better recognised and valued. Meanwhile, from a certain distance, it is somewhat ironical that more public attention is being paid to the uniformed agencies that are usually seen as under-performers, and some results of whose lapses have to be attended to by doctors and nurses. The latter’s skilled contribution to continually saving lives, and restoring health, turns out to be valued at a ‘gross’ 7% in 2021 (competing with the strike-prone sugar industry). When will it be recognised that there is but minimal professionally authoritative human resources management capability in the Public Service – a deficiency that resonates in the political decision-making process? This is not to say that the related unions have provided any appropriate answers.

Notwithstanding, a good start would be to reinstitute medical certification of fitness for entry into the Public Service (Sector) – from the top down. In the process, the employers and the unions should renegotiate agreements that would provide for: i. a comprehensive Job Evaluation

Exercise (the last was in 1992) ii. a continuous Performance

Appraisal System, resulting in iii. award of annual increments

where deemed justified

It therefore would be unnecessary for administrations to sever persons on any other grounds. Ask where in all this does the constitutional Public Service Commission function? For it needs to enquire of the justification for recruiting ‘Contracted Employees’ on preferential conditions, and who continue to remain in the service for life. It also needs to insist on accountability in relation to the promotion process. Additionally, it needs to be examined why Guyana’s Public Service maintains the lowest pensionable age of 55 years – in the Caribbean, and indeed the rest of the world – a colonial heritage. Noteworthy however, there exist the following eligibilities for pension in the following sample of Government Agencies: - GGMC, GuySuCo, GRA, GLDA

– 60 years

- GPL – 65 years

- Office of the Auditor General –

60 years

Further, it would be interesting to learn of the percentage of pensioners who are retained as ‘Contracted Employees’ – possibly to qualify for an NIS pension at age 60 years – effective from 1969. When will the rest of public servants grow up to be sixty years old? There seems much to discuss at the next ‘Staff Meeting’!