Short-term contracts, long-term problems

THE CALL by the new president of the Industrial Court, Heather Seale, for changes in how month-to-month contracts in the public service are treated with, particularly around elections, should be heeded urgently.

Ms Seale’s comments on July 26 came after the TT Unified Teachers’Association (TTUTA) made similar calls in June, as well as the publication in April of the auditor general’s report for the financial year 2023, which flagged issues in relation to this practice.

As she ruled on a trade dispute involving a contract worker caught up in a “restructuring” exercise at a national agency before the 2015 general election, Seale warned the practice of freezing employment in the interval between governments had drawbacks.

“Workers are offered month-to-month contracts and their future employment is thrown into uncertainty,” she said. When this occurs amid an organisational review, frequently undertaken by administrations, it becomes particularly disruptive and places employees in a state of limbo, she added.

“This is now such a frequent occurrence that perhaps the time has come for stakeholders to make provision for such eventualities especially where they result in job losses,” said the judge.

Seale, appointed a few months ago, is new. But the issue she raises is old.

According to personnel department guidelines dating back decades, contract employment is supposed to be done in three circumstances – where there is a dearth of suitable candidates; where special projects with set durations are undertaken; and where a need for specialist services has arisen.

Clearly, officials have been playing fast and loose with these rules to such an extent that it is worth asking if they have any meaning today.

A parliamentary committee heard, in 2017 that of the nearly 30,000 public servants in the country, almost half, or 13,800, were contract officers.

More recently, the auditor general’s report on the public accounts for the 2023 financial year noted expenditure on short-term employment rose by 31 per cent, from $229 million to $300 million.

“There were many instances of people being kept on for continuous periods significantly exceeding six months,” said auditor general Jaiwantie Ramdass. “This is contrary to good industrial relations practices and opens up the Government to liability.”

In addition to raising questions about nepotistic practices, transparency and accountability, the harmful effects of all this on workers were noted in 2018 by the committee.

These include loss of job security, loss of training and opportunities for upward mobility and the negative psychological effects therein.

The perception of a lack of productivity in the public service cannot be divorced from the implications of transforming long-term positions into short-term stints.

“The government is intent on ensuring the public service is manned by people who do not fall under the protection of the service commissions,” TTUTA, meanwhile, alleged in June.

Yet, every government faces such allegations.

That is why a permanent, expansive policy, rigidly adhered to, needs to be promulgated to remove uncertainty for these workers and, by extension, the public they serve.