Select a region
Public sector unions have hit out at the “folly” of Budget amendments aimed at pay, pensions, and staff numbers.
The Budget debate begins on Tuesday with a series of challenges to Policy & Resources proposals, some of which would lead to a dramatic change of course for a States that is being asked to vote through a £40m. rise in spending.
Major unions representing civil servants, public sector works, health staff and teachers have jointly written to all States members to try and warn them off some amendments.
"We object to our current (and future) members being used as the scapegoat for the States' inability to agree a tax package to address the reported deficit in public sector finances," they said.
"Acceptance of these amendments will be a further blow to the morale of an already beleaguered public sector workforce and add to their concerns about their ability to provide the services – health, social care, law enforcement and education to name but some – the people of Guernsey expect."
Pictured: Deputy Mark Helyar.
Deputies Mark Helyar and David Mahoney have proposed scrapping incremental pay increases for new staff that are currently baked into public sector contracts.
The unions say that pay does not automatically increase each year because for some staff there are gateways to progression, they can be withheld for poor performance, and progression only happens until the top of the scale is reached.
They warned the amendment would "immediately create a two-tier workforce, i.e. those that can progress through their incremental scale and those that have fixed salaries".
"Quite how those salaries are to be determined also causes concern," they said.
"The general principle underlying incremental pay scales is that the value for a job is the top of the scale; however, the norm is for an employee to start work on the lowest increment for their grade, with the opportunity to progress up the scale as they gain in skills and experience.
"This approach ensures that employees are compensated fairly as they develop their skills and expertise.
"By comparison, assessing the pay rate for a role based on an individual's 'capabilities and experience' will likely be very subjective, especially given that new employees true 'capabilities' will not be known until they have started working. Furthermore, there is likely to be considerable inconsistency across the entire workforce in how this pay assignment is discharged."
The amendment was "likely to exacerbate" recruitment issues, they added.
Deputies Helyar and Mahoney also want any post that has been vacant for six months deleted and only reinstated if it is demonstrated to be vital for frontline services.
The unions described this as a "sledgehammer to crack a nut".
"It fails to understand the reasons why recruitment to some posts is especially hard due to skills shortages both within and outside Guernsey. There is no correlation between ease of recruitment and the necessity of a role."
It might also force managers to recruit any candidate out of fear a role will be lost, they said, while also adding bureaucracy.
Another part of the two deputies' thinking is closing the existing public servants' pension scheme to new entrants and replacing it with a defined contributions scheme.
Policy & Resources is due to report on pensions.
The unions said: "We repeat our previously reported public comments:' ...there is simply no rationale for closing the current scheme to new employees and substituting a vastly inferior defined contribution scheme in its place, something no public sector employer has done anywhere in the British Isles. Such a move ... would make it virtually impossible to recruit from the UK or other islands, not to mention vastly increasing - not decreasing - the costs of the scheme to the taxpayer."
Pictured: Deputy John Dyke.
Deputies John Dyke and Chris Blin want to cap the headcount from January at current levels, subject to allowing 20 full time equivalents for technical specialist roles.
The unions are concerned about what they say is the arbitrary nature of the cap.
"If a service is understaffed on the operative date this would also cause severe difficulties, as presumably to remain within the cap they would not be allowed to recruit to those roles until another person had left the organisation.
"What constitutes a 'technical specialist role' is also not defined. In addition, it is unclear for what time period this cap is to apply."
The unions warn of a challenge coming should the amendments pass.
"These amendments pay no heed to collective bargaining as there has been no consultation with unions before their circulation. The States can, therefore, expect them to be subject to challenge if approved."
The letter was signed by Scott Alexander, Regional Support Official, UCU; Helen Ball, Senior Regional Officer – Representation, NEU; Wayne Bates, National Negotiating Official, NASUWT; Dave Bourgaize, Regional Officer, Unite; Sarah Johnston, Head of Operations, England – South East Region, RCN; Stephen Langford, Negotiations Executive, Prospect; Frank Minal, Industrial Relations Officer, BMA; Carl Parker, Head of Industrial Relations, ASCL; Elizabeth Salisbury, Regional Head – South Central, NAHT
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.