Beyond the politics of pay

Dec 15, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom… 

Kaieteur News- The art of governance, they say, lies in the delicate balancing act between pragmatism and principle. Nowhere is this balance more indelicate that in the area of public sector wages.

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC) government has a one-size-fits-all approach to annual salary increases. The previous APNU+AFC administration had a weighted strategy that neither enriched the worker nor satisfied the economist. Both approaches, while politically calculated, fail to address the fundamental question: What constitutes a living wage?

The PPP/C’s strategy, as predictable as the tides, has been to deliver annual across-the-board increases to public servants. This approach ostensibly aims to provide something for everyone. Yet, therein lies the flaw. Equal treatment, in this context, masks the profound inequalities within the public sector. An across-the-board increase of, say, 5% to both a janitor earning $60,000 per month and a senior administrator earning $600,000 does little to uplift the former and does everything to fatten the wallet of the latter. The policy is a blunt instrument—simple, politically expedient, but devoid of nuance.

On the other hand, the APNU+AFC’s approach, ostensibly progressive, sought to offer larger increases to those at the lower end of the salary scale while providing smaller adjustments to those higher up. The logic here is compelling: prioritize those who need it most. For a worker struggling to meet basic needs, a 10% increase on a modest salary could mean the difference between sufficiency and scarcity. Meanwhile, the highly paid professional, already enjoying relative comfort, might not feel the pinch of a smaller increment.

But the APNU+AFC’s strategy is not without its pitfalls. Over time, such a policy risks compressing the salary structure, where lower-band workers’ earnings inch closer to those of their supervisors or managers. This could lead to resentment among skilled professionals, whose expertise and responsibilities are no longer adequately reflected in their compensation. The policy, while noble in intent, runs the risk of diminishing the incentives for career advancement and excellence.

Yet, as we scrutinize both models, a glaring omission emerges. Neither administration has grounded its wage policies in a benchmark for a living wage. What exactly does it cost to live with dignity in Guyana today? Without a clear standard, these salary adjustments—whether across-the-board or weighted—amount to little more than tinkering at the margins. They fail to address the systemic inadequacies that leave too many workers trapped in a cycle of perpetual struggle.

A living wage is not merely a figure plucked from thin air; it is a measure that considers the actual cost of housing, food, transportation, and other essentials. It is a yardstick for what it takes to provide workers and their families with a modest but dignified standard of living. By anchoring wage policies to this benchmark, governments can move beyond the optics of fairness and deliver tangible improvements to workers’ lives.

Consider the transformative potential of such an approach. For the janitor earning $60,000, a living wage could mean access to better housing, reliable transportation, and nutritious meals. For the mid-level clerk, it might enable saving for some future need or to buy his or her own car. And for the senior administrator, it ensures that their earnings remain commensurate with their responsibilities and the market value of their skills.

A living wage framework also offers a pragmatic solution to the challenges posed by both the PPP/C and APNU+AFC models. It eliminates the arbitrariness of across-the-board increases while addressing the compression concerns of weighted adjustments. By aligning wages with the cost of living, it provides a rational basis for salary increments that reflect both need and merit.

Of course, implementing such a policy is not without challenges. Determining the living wage requires robust data and regular updates to account for inflation and economic shifts. It demands a commitment to transparency and consultation with stakeholders, including labour unions, employers, and independent experts. And, perhaps most crucially, it requires political will—the willingness to prioritize workers’ welfare over short-term electoral gains.

The question of wages is ultimately a question of values. Do we value workers enough to ensure that their earnings enable a life of dignity? Do we recognize that fair compensation is not just a matter of economic efficiency but a moral imperative? The answers to these questions will define the legacy of any administration.

As it stands, the PPP/C’s approach ensures a modicum of predictability but sacrifices equity. The APNU+AFC’s model aspires to fairness but risks undermining professional incentives. Both are trapped in the politics of the moment, unable to chart a path toward a more just and sustainable wage policy. It is time to break free from this cycle of mediocrity.

A living wage is not a panacea, but it is a start. It is a commitment to workers and their families that their labour will be valued—not just in words but in wages. It is a recognition that economic policies must serve the many, not just the few. And it is a challenge to both government and society to envision a future where work is not just a means of survival but a foundation for a better life.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this newspaper.)

(Beyond the politics of pay)

---

• APNU+AFC administration, Beyond the politics of pay, Peeping Tom, perpetual struggle, pragmatism

---