Latest update January 3rd, 2025 2:19 AM
Oct 24, 2015 Letters
Dear Editor,
One notes the missive published in KN of Wednesday, October 21, 2015, over the name of one Rawle Sen. The formulation of the letter, however, strongly suggests that the writer is a fictional representative of a group think – which assumes that other persons behave with the same amorality as that reflected in composition of their allegations.
Accordingly the group is hereby invited to conduct a forensic audit (currently a popular exercise) of all the Consultancy Reports of S.V. Jones Associates so as to identify any evidence to confirm the presumption that the latter have ever completed any work in relation to the Public Service, and particularly in respect of the existing compensation regimes.
With the purported intelligence the group writer brings to his/her examination of my letters to the press, the former (along with the ‘hundreds of others’) could not possibly have missed the explicit reference to all published salary figures having been extracted from the Annual National Estimates passed in Parliament. With the resources at their disposal it should be easy to have this information verified.
The complainant would also have possessed the capacity to research the fact (already widely known) that the current 14 Grade Salary structure for the Public Service was constructed since the 1980’s. What they would have ‘sensed’ from the testimony of various witnesses to the COI is, that despite changes in job content and the introduction of new technologies, no attempt was made by the relevant authorities to review the job values and their relativities over the last two decades.
They would also have learnt of the official policy to abandon a long established performance management system, and replace it with insensitive annual across-the-board increases – an activity which kept the individual authentic public servant exactly in the same place in the adjusted scale. The latter’s frustration was compounded with the practice of the contracted employment (of favoured personnel) at rates that disregarded the relevant scales, much to their disillusionment.
Should the aforementioned group re-check the records they would discover that it is this phenomenon of ‘bunching’ of which the informed witness to the COI have complained – a blatant transgression of compensation management perpetuated by their own colleagues.
The number of contracted employees has grown exponentially to some 5000 across Ministries and Regional Administrations, without any explicit record of the positions they encumber, or of the criteria on which the selection was based. The Public Service Commission has always disclaimed responsibility for the execution of this travesty of the principles and practice of human resources management. Notwithstanding the above one can do no less than welcome the concern of the writer, who should be invited to make a positive contribution to resolving the identified compensation issues in his own and the national interest. In the meantime he/she should become sensitised as to the substantive difference between the Board, and the COI into the sugar industry.
E.B. John
Editor’s note. It is not the policy of this newspaper to publish attacks on the work or performance of others using fictitious names. We will seek to ascertain te idenity of the name Mr. John referred to.
Jan 03, 2025
UDFA Christmas Futsal Championship Final Capital FC overwhelm Winners Connection 16-8 to claim third place Kaieteur Sports- Botafago are the new Upper Demerara Football Association (UDFA) Christmas...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The sugar industry has been for centuries Guyana’s agricultural backbone. Yet, its struggles... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]