Review mandate of SRC

THE EDITOR: I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not support the granting of the recommended increases of the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) to any of the offices that falls under its purview, not just the political offices as some commentators have suggested. We are not in the fictional Animal Farm whereby some are more equal than others.

Given the reality of our current financial and economic predicament, equity demands that all those who fall under the purview of the SRC ought to receive no more than what the lower-ranked public servants have been offered/received for similar contracted periods. There is also a moral obligation on the government to practise what it preaches.

In my opinion, given the stark realities of our current financial and economic circumstances, the State is in no position to grant any increases at all. However, the offers on the table are in reality a situation where politics trumps economics; please forgive the pun.

The State is borrowing money like mad to meet recurrent expenditure, toting deficit budgets for over 15 years. The funds available for capital expenditure are minuscule by comparison, as reflected in, among other things, our dilapidated infrastructure, and the paucity of funding for other development programmes.

We are behaving like an individual who is borrowing money to buy food and pay rent every month, but is not rigorously seeking to cut back on his expenditure or, if possible, finding additional sustainable sources of income.

Soon enough he will be facing destitution as no one will be willing to lend him any money, given his financial situation and his inability to repay. When that happens to a country, the resort is to the International Monetary Fund (IMF, the lender of last resort) with its very stringent and oppressive conditionalities.

Included in such very onerous measures would usually be a reduction in the remuneration packages of state employees, mass retrenchment of such employees, and a massive cutback of expenditure on social programmes that benefit those who live in abject poverty (the most vulnerable), including those who are severely disabled and, therefore, unable to work.

I keep hearing various union spokespeople say the government is obligated to grant them the very extravagant increases sought for their members so that such members can maintain their standard of living. These trade unionists do not seem to recognise that the economic indicators clearly demonstrate that the country no longer has the wherewithal to maintain that standard of living. We cannot make bread out of stone.

The Industrial Court, in making awards regarding remuneration, is required to take account of the impact of its decisions on the national community as a whole. In fact, the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 88:01, makes provision for the court to give consideration to, among other things, under section 20 (2):

(a) The necessity to maintain and expand the level of employment.

(e) The necessity to preserve and promote the competitive position of products of TT in the domestic market as well as in overseas markets.

(f ) The need to ensure the continued ability of the government to finance development programmes in the public sector.

The mandate of the SRC must be upgraded to take account of the impact of its recommendations on the national community, and not just those offices under its purview.

That would avoid the spectre of its recommendations being completely out of step with reality and, thereby, becoming the subject of ridicule and much harsh criticism.

LOUIS W WILLIAMS

St Augustine