Trade unions should feel vindicated by the benchmarking report, writesPeter McLoone. But they will not be able to pick and choose from it, hewarns
Public sector benchmarking has been the biggest exercise of its kind undertaken. No other country in the industrialised world has subjected public sector pay to such rigorous inspection.
The outcome has vindicated the unions' view that public sector pay fell behind during the economic boom. But Irish taxpayers should also be reassured that they now have the most rational possible assessment of what public servants deserve.
The main challenge now is to get the report's recommendations implemented as quickly as possible. The Government is not in a position to drag its heels. Public servants have waited too long for that, and the benchmarking body itself has clearly factored in issues of affordability and economic competitiveness. Talk of a three- or four-year implementation period is nonsense, particularly when many of the awards are in single figures.
In my experience the benchmarking body has been the most independent of independent review bodies - a characteristic personified by its chairman Justice John Quirke. It has been clear from the outset that there was no question of special favours or stitch-ups. Unions and management gave the process their best shot and everyone must respect the outcome.
Benchmarking offered a chance to have a fair assessment of public service pay based on rigorous comparisons with the wider economy. Public servants and their unions entered the process without guarantees, but confident that they had a strong case. It's too late to change the rules now.
The public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions meets tomorrow. I will be recommending that ICTU seek an early meeting with the Department of Finance to get the pay recommendations implemented quickly.
Public servants will not be impressed by arguments that the country can't afford it. Neither will they accept the view that society must choose between decent pay and better services.
The benchmarking body's terms of reference, agreed by Government and unions, acknowledged that the level and quality of labour-intensive public services depend on attracting, retaining and motivating excellent staff. Taxpayers are right to demand more and better services, but they understand that reasonable pay is necessary if services are to improve.
The need to underpin competitiveness and economic prosperity was also central to the benchmarking process and the report makes it clear that the benchmarking body took this very seriously. It says its "overall concern" was that public sector pay "should not lead the private sector in matters of reward".
In other words, while its recommendations confirm and address the unions' view that public sector pay has fallen behind, its recommendations stop short of putting public sector pay ahead of comparable workers in the private sector.
Tellingly, the body set its pay recommendations at the median - not the top - of private sector pay rates, after taking account of pensions and job security, which are generally, though not always, better in the public sector than in private industry and commerce. The benchmarking body has also linked the bulk of its pay recommendations to modernisation and change. And it expects "real outputs" in this regard.
This will probably be done in the same way that the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) linked pay rises to verified productivity improvements. Quality assurance groups have already been established in every part of the public service. These groups, made up of management, union and external experts, have established, measured and verified criteria for modernisation and change.
In fact, all pay rises under the last two national agreements have been explicitly linked to co-operation with modernisation and change. In short, the taxpayer is getting value for money and public servants have nothing to fear from the benchmarking body's recommendations on modernisation.
The unions have also been vindicated in that the benchmarking body decided against recommending the introduction of individual performance-related pay. Its research appears to have found little evidence that private sector workers generally have their pay linked to individual performance.
It's no surprise that the body made a range of different pay recommendations. It would have lacked credibility if a huge and complex job-evaluation exercise had come up with the same result for everyone.
But it's not true to say that the lower paid have universally done worse. For example, the recommendations for manual workers in local government give higher percentage increases to the lower paid. In the case of nurses, the Commission on Nursing indicated a need to improve pay for management grades. This was highlighted to the benchmarking body and the outcome should not shock.
No doubt some workers will be disappointed at the outcome, among them some members of unions that wisely avoided raising unachievable hopes. By and large the report is in line with sensible expectations, but some of its recommendations are puzzling.
The unique institutional position of the benchmarking body makes it difficult to deal with such problems. The body is a creature of the PPF and has ceased to exist now that the report has been issued.
It will not be possible to negotiate over the recommendations and there is no appeal mechanism built into the process.
Unions will have to deal with the report in a new way, mindful that the Government is unlikely to allow them to accept parts of the report and reject others.
In years to come I believe benchmarking will be seen as a success for public servants and the people they serve. Not least because the benchmarking body's recommendations come on top of cumulative pay rises of between 18 and 21.5 per cent under the PPF, plus significant tax reductions.
Peter McLoone is general secretary of IMPACT and chairman of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' public service committee