Madam, - As a serving public servant I find the current debate about the justification (or otherwise) of the benchmarking award being paid to civil servants both bizarre and dismaying.
This award is not some kind of bonus given to a bunch of recession-proof loungers who, if the media are to be believed, simply sit about doing not very much at all to earn their keep. The emphasis being put on whether our public servants are "earning" this award or not is an insult to the many extremely hard-working (and underpaid) individuals who do their best to provide a quality service to the people of this country in spite of a system, which in many cases, and through no fault of theirs, is unwieldy at best.
The benchmarking award was supposedly designed to bring the woefully inadequate pay of public servants, especially in the lower grades, into line with the amounts being earned by people doing equivalent jobs in the private sector. For example, a clerical officer with two to three years' service will bring home something around €323 a week. Many of my colleagues (and I am not talking about the high-earning mandarins) regularly work more than 45 hours a week simply to enable them to pay the rent. After the recent "bonanza" most will find themselves with an extra €5 to €6 in their pockets after tax, PRSI, etc. In this context then, the benchmarking "award" has already been "earned" several times over.
As somebody who has worked in both the public and private sectors, I can testify to the dedication, initiative and ability of most of my current colleagues and I think it a disgrace that they should have to take the heat for a current economic climate created largely through the mismanagement and incompetence of their political masters - who, lest we forget, have benefited from massive pay increases in recent times without any mention of productivity ever being a factor! - Yours, etc.,
DARAGH BEIRNE, Grosvenor Square, Rathmines, Dublin 6.
Madam, - The articles by Jim O'Leary and Bill Roche (Business this Week, July 11th) draw attention to the prospect of taxpayers getting bad value from the benchmarking of public sector pay. Both writers point to the flaws in the process because of an absence of transparency. Neither writer is confident that real productivity will be delivered, based on past experience.
There are two further aspects that need to be taken into account before any further payments are made.
Firstly, the pay data used for comparison was collected when the economy was booming. The response of business to a downturn is to reorganise, freeze pay, cut jobs - or even close, with loss of all jobs. Daily reports of business closures attest to this. What has been the response of the public service? To add 20,000 employees in the past five years! This indicates a significant drop in productivity which needs to be made good before pay is increased further, if the taxpayer is to get value for pay-outs estimated at €1.1 billion (plus pension costs of a further €1 billion).
Secondly, the private sector pay data may no longer be valid as companies have adjusted to the need to survive in more difficult times. Jobs are scarcer so recruitment is easier, resulting in lower rates of pay in many sectors, such as IT. Unless this is taken into account, taxpayers will find that a "bad pay deal" gets even worse. - Yours, etc.,
CLIFF HILLIARD, Proby Square, Blackrock, Co Dublin.