WORKING BACKWARDS

October 13, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

There are two sets of contrasting philosophies at work in the controversy concerning the award of huge salary increases to members of the Cabinet. This column discusses these contrasting sets of philosophies.

The first philosophy is the one that argues that the ordinary man deserves more than the bosses. This is contrasted with the philosophy that states it’s best to reward those at the top more than those at the bottom since there are greater benefits from this approach rather than the former.

The first philosophy which argues for the poor man deserving more than the rich man has long been abandoned in practice. Yet it is still seen as a morally desirable good and many people have come to accept it as infallible truth, never mind that even the socialists who preach working class power have always ensured that their leaders are better remunerated and the improvements of these leaders are at higher rate than the poor.

Those who are still deluded by the notion that the poor deserve more than the rich are therefore going to be critical of any government which grants to Ministers a higher increase than the poor. It has never dawned on these advocates that this is a situation that is unsustainable because if the poor continues to get higher rates of increases than the senior officials, there will come a time when the servant will work for more than the master.

The world has long moved beyond the situation whereby the workers should enjoy a higher increase than their bosses. This is a discredited and archaic viewpoint. No one follows that mantra, not even those who are ranting and raving about the increases that the government has offered to its Ministers.

The most important workers are those at the top. The 20/80 rule still holds true. Twenty per cent of the workers, mainly those at the top, do eighty per cent of the work. The best corporate strategy should therefore be to identity your top 20% and ensure that they are paid well and are looked after well in terms of benefits.

The second philosophy that is relevant to the discourse of salary increases is the one that states that there are two sets of rules in society, one for the privileged and the other for the underprivileged. This is in contrast with the philosophy that states everyone should be treated equally.

Those who feel that the same rules should apply to both bosses and their subordinates will be peeved by the increases that the Cabinet handed to itself. They will say that it is wrong for the salaries and benefits of ordinary public servants to be subject to the findings of a Commission of Inquiry. So, on the one hand, the rank and file workers have to await the findings of a Commission of Inquiry before they know what they will receive while on the other hand, the Cabinet excludes itself from this process.

There is another philosophical angle that arises here and I would suspect that this is at the heart of the consternation that is being felt by people throughout the country over the increases that Cabinet has handed to its members. That angle is that the big boys know what is best.

This is something that needs to be looked at closely. The big boys have decided that their increases should not be subject to any Commission of Inquiry because they know best.

The Commission of Inquiry however can give a wake-up call to this government by using the increases that the Cabinet has granted to itself as a base to reward the other members of the public service. It is not a question of percentages but rather of numbers. If a Minister is going to be paid X dollars, then the COI can work backwards to determine what, for example, a constable should be paid.

If this approach is taken, then the police constables may very well from next year have a starting salary in excess of $100,000 per month. Now that would be interesting would it not?