Let us hope the cost to the State of €730 a day for every private sector worker is worthwhile, writes Chris Dooley, Industry and Employment Correspondent
At €1.1 billion, the benchmarking pay awards came at a cost of €730 a year for every private-sector worker in the State.
It's little wonder, then, that a commotion has been caused by the publication this week of Government Department "action plans" setting out what civil servants will be doing for the money.
Amid the obscure language, restating of existing commitments and frequent references to actions being subject to further negotiations, it is difficult to discern real productivity concessions by staff.
Yet the benchmarking body, when it recommended average pay rises of 8.9 per cent for public-sector workers last year, was very clear on the need for such concessions.
It "strongly" recommended that 75 per cent of the pay rise be conditional on public servants signing up to a programme of modernisation and change.
"It is the firm expectation of the body that real outputs will be delivered," said its report.
Benchmarking, in the first place, was designed to allow public-sector workers to catch up on the wage gains made by their private-sector counterparts during the economic boom.
In private-sector companies, modernisation and change is an ongoing reality for staff.
It was in recognition of this that the benchmarking body insisted that public servants must also accept change if they were to qualify for matching pay rates.
For those who thought this would mean clear and identifiable changes in work practices and obvious improvements in services to the public, the action plans published this week have been a severe disappointment.
Most of the plans - one for each Government Department - run to more than 20 pages, yet specific commitments arising directly from the benchmarking process are hard to find.
The plans contain a huge amount of jargon and are expressed in such general terms that it is difficult to extract real meaning, as typified by this gem from the Department of Transport: "Department to set out strategic equality objectives, including a programme of affirmative action in the main HRM areas, in the HR strategy and Strategy Statement." This ambitious objective is due to be achieved by December 2004.
A running theme through most of the plans is a commitment to various strategies which were in place well before the benchmarking process was set up, such as implementation of the Performance management and development system, which has been around since May 2000.
Where there are clearly stated objectives, such as extending the use of open recruitment, many are conditional on further discussions with unions.
Yet the case for the public having been short-changed by the benchmarking process is not as clear as it might seem.
Firstly, even general commitments to modernisation such as increased use of new technology, another common theme in the plans, do involve real changes in work practices. Such changes are routinely the basis for pay claims in the private sector, at least in unionised employments.
Secondly, the 8.9 per cent average pay rise may not be nearly as bad a deal for the taxpayer as many appear to think.
Perhaps the loudest objection made to the benchmarking outcome by its critics was the lack of transparency in the process.
While the benchmarking body explained in detail the methodology it used in comparing private and public-sector pay jobs, the actual research it drew upon and the basis for its conclusions remain a secret, locked away at its office in Bowe Street, Dublin.
The assumption, however, that a more transparent process would have resulted in lower pay awards was severely undermined by a Labour Court award to public-sector craft workers in May. About 4,500 such workers employed by local authorities and the health boards had remained outside the benchmarking process proper for historical reasons.
Since the 1970s, pay rates for public-service craft workers have been set every three or four years by reference to the craft rates of pay in the private sector.
Pay rates for a further 30,000 public-sector general workers are set by the same process.
Unions agreed to conduct the most recent review as a separate, but parallel process to the main benchmarking study, with the same payment dates to apply.
As agreement could not be reached and the matter ended up with the Labour Court, a transparent review did take place for one group of public-sector workers. After a straightforward comparison between public and private-sector rates, the court recommended a 17 per cent increase for the public-sector staff.
The court, in other words, found that the pay of craft workers in the public service had fallen substantially behind their private-sector counterparts in the latter years of the boom.
While direct comparisons cannot be drawn between the craft workers and others in the public service, it is interesting that the one group which was openly "benchmarked" received almost twice the average increase awarded to others.
So if €1.1 billion seems a bit expensive for what we're getting, it might just still be a bargain.
Civil service action plans: worthy or waffle?
A sample of quotes from the plans
Department of Agriculture and Food - Action: "All staff commit to providing the co-operation and commitment necessary to deliver a quality customer service." ... Date: ongoing.
Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism - Action: "Implementation of agreed Internal Audit Programme which includes a number of system audits selected on a risk-based analysis of Department's activities." ... Date: "In line with targets set in programme."
Attorney General's Office - Action: "The Office has adopted a Project Management approach for all big projects as a means of enhancing value for money." ... Date: not applicable.
Central Statistics Office - Action: "CSO to prepare a report on the statistical potential of administrative records for key policy purposes of departmental data holdings of six Departments." ... Date: July 2003.
Chief State Solicitor's Office - Action: "The Partnership approach is used to foster good industrial relations. Regular meetings are held with local union branch representatives." ... Date: ongoing.
Department of Education and Science - Action: "As web-based systems are introduced, there will be a move from paper-based systems which will mean changes in work practices." ... Date: 2004-2005
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - Action: "Improve performance indicators and measurement in terms of outputs and outcomes and incorporate in Business Plans using MIF [Management Information Framework\] to support in due course. Report progress in Annual Reports. ... Date: Business plans for 2005.
Annual report for 2005.
Department of Foreign Affairs - Action: "The Department will comply with the Government Policy on Better Regulation, when published." ... Date: not applicable.
Department of Health and Children - Action: "Establish an internal complaints and appeals procedure." ... Date: August 2003.
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform - Action: "We will continue to develop the management processes necessary to ensure Government policy objectives, as they relate to the Justice and equality sector, are implemented. This will involve the application of best practice in the area of corporate governance and a process of regular review of implementation of Agreed Programme for Government commitments." ... Date: ongoing.
Director of Public Prosecutions - Action: "Lack of industrial action." ... Date: ongoing.
Department of the Taoiseach - Action: "Information on employee skills, qualifications and training will be improved with the introduction of the new Human Resource Management IT system." ... Date: April 2003.
Valuation Office - Action: "Lunch-time opening for public office. Opening hours will be 9.15 to 5.30 every day subject to negotiations with unions starting in September 2003." Date: October 2003.
Benchmarking pay awards: the story so far
July 2000 - Public Service Benchmarking Body, chaired by Mr Justice John Quirke, was set up under the terms of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
June 2002 - After 103 meetings and examinations of 3,994 public service and 3,563 private sector jobs, the body issues a 280-page report. It recommends average pay increases of 8.9 per cent to allow public servants' pay rates catch up with those in the private sector. The first quarter of the increase is to be paid from December 2001; the remaining 75 per cent is conditional on unions agreeing a programme of modernisation and change.
"It is the firm expectation of the body that real outputs will be delivered," says the report.
February 2003 - Modernisation programme, agreed following months of union-management negotiations, published as part of new partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress. Timetable for payments of increases also agreed.
First 25 per cent from December 2001, 50 per cent from January 2004 and final 25 per cent from June 2005. It is envisaged that independently chaired performance verification groups (PVGs) will be set up to ensure each sector - Civil Service, education, health, justice and local government - deliver on modernisation commitments.
July-August 2003 - PVG- approved action plans for health sector and Civil Service, setting out target dates for delivery of changes, published on Health Service Employers' Agency and Department of Finance websites respectively. Plans for other sectors being finalised. Payment of the awards, costing an annual total of €1.1 billion, conditional on PVGs confirming delivery of action plans.