We’ll foot the bill for public sector pay rises but get nothing in return

I WAS suffering under the delusion, probably like most other people in the private sector, that the secretive benchmarking deal for workers in the public sector was supposed to result in productivity and improved services.

That, and Sustaining Progress, is going to cost taxpayers €141 million and far from getting better services, we will, apparently, be getting worse or fewer ones.

Benchmarking is going to cost us €86.4m, and the other deal will cost €55.8m, to keep our public servants happy doing whatever they're doing.

When the current Fianna Fáil-PD conglomeration decided to give the public servants a massive pay hike, it was reasonable to expect we would get something back.

The problem is, of course, that it was all decided behind closed doors and we haven't a clue what the beneficiaries of so much largesse, courtesy of the taxpayers, are expected to deliver.

When the closed doors were opened, we were told what it's going to cost us and nothing else, apart from the fact we are going to pick up the bill in one shape or another.

Under benchmarking, public sector workers will get an average of 4.45%, as well as a 3% hike under the first part of Sustaining Progress.

Now the 4,250 workers in local authorities and health boards are getting 17% of a rise, or a tidy €87.59 a week, onto their wages.

A very handy sum, and one which most workers in private industry wouldn't exactly turn up their noses at.

But the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) feels it isn't enough and is recommending to its members, about 500 of them, that they reject the offer in a ballot to be held between next week and November 6.

SIPTU described the increase as "a considerable achievement in the face of opposition to public service pay increases from business and from right-wing politicians".

The result of the ballot among all the public service unions will be binding, and, as most of the members don't believe in looking a gift horse in the mouth, the unfortunates in the TEEU will probably have to settle for the measly €87.59 increase a week.

That increase represents almost twice the 9% rise other public service workers were awarded, so presumably their flexibility and productivity will increase accordingly.

The public will hardly know whether it will or not, for the simple reason we don't know what they're expected to give in return for the considerable pay hike we are paying for.

Because the so-called Government threw a serious wobbly and conceded on benchmarking without any regard to where the money was going to come from, the onus is on local authorities to deliver it.

The logical conclusion is that councils, because they cannot decrease staff, will have to find alternative sources of income, and we know in whose direction they will be looking; at us as the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland (CCI) pointed out by saying that the Government is dumping the problem on local authorities.

"It [the Government] has given local authorities no alternative but to find the money through a combination of cutting services and hiking up charges to business and domestic users," said John Dunne of the CCI.

In an admirable outburst, Fine Gael's environment spokesman Bernard Allen described the deal as totally unfair, and wondered why the taxpayer and businesspeople had to foot the bill when the Government is funding the pay rises for all other public sector workers.

Why, indeed? And why, indeed, does not he and his leader, Enda Kenny, who recently suggested the deal should be abandoned, propose that all our politicians forego the increase they get under benchmarking?

They agree it's unfair but, apart from issuing the odd comment or press release, seem quite happy to accept and enjoy the benefits of such an inequitable system.

It can hardly be argued these days that our TDs are badly paid, but it is symptomatic that consideration for those who put them into their well-paid jobs is very far down their list of priorities.

Since the first national pay agreement was signed a long time ago, they have largely been the basis for the economic progress the country has enjoyed.

RECENTLY, the Economic and Social Research Institute warned that the payment of benchmarking awards to public servants next year could threaten the future of that social partnership.

They maintain that it will be difficult to secure agreement on wage-bargaining next year because private sector workers will perceive a "stark divergence" between their pay terms and those in place for the public sector.

It stands to reason that if the workers in the private sector are funding a considerable increase for their counterparts in the public sector, through more expensive or depleted services, they will not be too enthusiastic to engage in pay bargaining, when, palpably, there will be no bargain on the table.

Peter McLoone, ICTU Public Services Committee chairman, said yesterday that crucial public service reforms would be set back years if benchmarking payments were postponed or abandoned: "The modernisation programme linked to benchmarking pay rises is already delivering major reforms while eliminating strikes that have dogged the public services for years."

He also said the process had already delivered radical reforms. Where, you might well ask, has such "radical" reform taken place?

All the public are aware of is that this country is one of the most expensive places to live, without matching services, and benchmarking is only going to improve the lot of those who directly benefit from it.

Our waiting lists in the health service are unacceptably long, young children attend some dilapidated and even dangerous schools, there's a chronic shortage of gardaí and housing is almost out of reach.

Even elements of the long-awaited Hanley Report, the latest health reform plan and there have been many have been declared unrealistic and unworkable.

Finbarr Fitzpatrick of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, whose members will be among the most affected, said it would be impossible to implement the 10-month time frame for some of the proposed arrangements.

The report focused only on the Mid-Western Health Board and the East Coast Area Health Board, but the other eight health boards are in limbo as far as planning is concerned.

Health Minister Micheál Martin, in what can only be described as under-statement, admitted the report represented a challenge, but declared the August 2004 deadline was not negotiable.

It's typical, isn't it, at this stage from this Government, that another diktat is handed down, despite advice from the professionals concerned that elements are flawed.