By Phyllis Thomas, News EditorFURTHER SALARY increases to Members of Parliament have been suspended pending recommendations of a five-member committee set up by the Prime Minister to review their salaries.
That was one of the leading news stories last week but I dare the 60 men and women in the Jamaican Parliament to go a step further. Whatever recommendations the Oliver Clarke-led committee may make about the size of any future increases that you should take, ignore them. Instead, effective immediately, take a 97 per cent roll-back in the increases you have already received, so that what you will now earn will be six per cent of the salary before the last increase. And this six per cent must be spread over two years.
No cynicism is intended here. This is being suggested with sincerity. The people of Jamaica have put these people in charge of the country. But the country is in a financial crisis. Even if we want to use Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies' euphemism of "financial constraints" to describe the situation, it is still daunting and we have no choice but to take ourselves out of it. So who will be the first one to make that move in the nation's interest? Lead by example. I dare you!
The review will definitely record the need for adequate compensation for MPs. Ideally, their salaries should be commensurate with the work they do. Steering the ship we call Jamaica is hard work and we all know that. Also, adequate compensation should keep corruption at bay. But realistically, the country cannot afford the series of increases that the parliamentarians had been getting over the last three years which have pushed up their salaries by more than 100 per cent.
And then to turn around and tell the other segments of the public sector that they cannot get more than three per cent was really insulting. That piece of impudence severely eroded any bargaining power that the Government had in salary negotiations within the public sector.
That's why groups like the medical technologists and teachers were so vociferous and steadfast in their rejection of the compensation packages being offered to them.
But if the MPs take the salary cut, the Government can afford to look the teachers in the eye, for example, and say: You can't get any more than six per cent over two years. This is what we can afford.
And when that happens, if the teachers or other public sector workers remain unwavering in their demands then they will lose public sympathy. Right now they have that support. They have the full hundred because the difference between a 100 per cent pay increase and a three or six per cent pay increase is scandalous.
Among the demands that the teachers made for their 2002-2004 contract period, which the Government is rejecting are: a 30 per cent increase in basic pay in each year; motor vehicle duty concessions to those who have given more than 10 years service to the profession; transport allowance for all teachers; parcels of land to be set aside in each parish to provide them with housing solutions; housing allowances for those teachers who were not currently benefiting.
Given the state of the economy I believe that the 30 per cent increase on basic salaries which teachers are asking for is excessive not that they do not deserve it this is one claim that simply cannot be met. However, I firmly believe that they should get the motor vehicle duty concession to which other public sector workers are entitled. The proposal for parcels of land to be set aside to provide housing solutions should also be given serious consideration.
Minister of Education, Maxine Henry-Wilson, said that the Government is still open to discussions with the teachers, so those proposals should once again be placed on the table.
It seems though that the offer of three per cent increase on basic pay will remain the same. And the teachers are threatening to go on strike tomorrow. It is my belief that the only thing that will avert a strike, apart from giving them a substantial portion of what they are demanding, is not to tell them that the country cannot afford it. Show them that the country cannot afford it by yourselves agreeing to a roll-back of the salary increases that you gave yourselves.
Before Mr. Patterson suspended further pay increases to parliamentarians, they were to have received an increase of 20 per cent on April 1, 2003; another 20 per cent April 1, 2004 and a further 30 per cent on April 1, 2005.
According to an article in The Observer, Mrs. Henry-Wilson said of the Jamaica Teachers Association's negotiating team: "Their particular concern is a balance between the interest of their members and the national interest."
But although the increases which parliamentarians were getting were in line with those of civil servants, based on a formula which was recommended by a 1973 parliamentary committee, that balance between their interest and the national interest eluded them. If not, they would have discontinued using that formula even temporarily. They would have reviewed the exercise and they wouldn't have waited until there was a public outcry to take action.
