A slap in the face

THE EDITOR: So, in true Orwellian fashion the lower caste animals received a four per cent salary increase while the big sawatee animals are to potentially receive a 34 per cent salary increase thanks to the wisdom of the Salaries Review Commission (SRC).

So, is this a case of us paying our rulers to lord over us or a case of just compensation for the stellar job they are doing?

All unions when negotiating for salaries for workers, etc must meet with their employer. In the case of state-employed individuals their employer is the State. The agent of the State that they meet with in this process is the Chief Personnel Officer, who gets his directives from the Minister of Finance, who gets his ideas of our just desserts in convos with the Prime Minister.

So the big dogs delegate this task to their medium dogs because they are too busy with the affairs of state to meet with these plebian unions.

The process of deciding upon our lords’ compensation starts with the SRC whose members are appointed by the President after consulting with the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. According to a report, the SRC then reviews compensation packages in the US and other places to determine how much our esteemed lords deserve. The recommendations are then discussed in Parliament and debated, then voted on.

So, we must meet with an agent of our employer, negotiate and, if unable to, face the Industrial Court or appropriate arm and be judged by officials who have been appointed there by our employer. These big sawatee animals, however, appoint people to say how much they deserve then debate among themselves how much to pay themselves. Make it make sense.

Now the PM may speak of sustainability, the complexity of their duties, etc, so apparently their duties are much more requisite of skills and knowledge that mere plebian animals do not possess and they are therefore not deserving of exorbitant remuneration packages. Also, the number of people comprising this elite group of experts is so small that these packages are sustainable.

The 14,000 plus teachers need to be thankful for the two per cent plus two per cent, for anything more is unsustainable and may result in layoffs. Our leaders know what’s best for us. The shepherd knows what’s best for his sheep. Let us hope we are sheep for wool and not for mutton.

Let’s say the sustainability and deservedness are justified, is it right though? They tell us tighten our belts, buy coalpot and ride bicycle. But they can eat all the ham and lamb while we take the jam. They can bring in tax-exempt vehicles while we must pay all the taxes to drive on our lovely roads and face the whole month in traffic.

If all animals are equal, shouldn’t the leaders lead by example? Show that we are in this together? While the masses tighten their belts, why should the overlords buy designer belts to fit a larger waist? Or is it a case of we should work harder if we want to live high off the fat of the land like them?

Red jerseys may say this oversimplifies things and if the yellow jerseys were there they would do the same thing. Maybe this is true, but is it right? This being an article and not a thesis it needs to be simplified, but the essence of the message is not diminished. If indeed they are deserving then that must mean that the crime rate is more than acceptable, our roads are indeed of the highest standard, our classrooms are well equipped, our healthcare system is above par, etc, etc.

But according to Aesop, “might is right” and considering we have not rioted yet, let them do as they wish and let us humble ourselves and be thankful for what we have.

DILLON HARRACKSINGH

via e-mail