Madam, – There may be a case for reducing public sector pay, but Prof John O’Hagan (Opinion, November 10th) has not made it.
First, there is no such thing as “reverse benchmarking”: it’s like calling for “reverse comparing”. The term is borrowed from physical measurement, but setting pay rates is nothing like an exact science.
Second, the fiscal argument is not convincing: we are currently a low tax, low public spending society. This is not a necessity, as evidenced by our neighbours who have chosen different paths.
Third, the consequences of pay cuts are ignored. Cutting pay will make it harder to recruit some specialist professions. While pay rates may be lower than other countries, so too is the cost of living. Cuts will demoralise workers, and repeated admonition to be grateful for having a job will not counteract the more immediate financial pain. Further, it is blithely assumed that public sector workers can afford to work for less, but many cannot since they became mortgaged to the hilt on the basis that their income is secure.
Fourth, the numbers involved in banking and building are not tiny: the number of wealthy people may be relatively small, but the sums accumulated are enormous.
Finally, if the State cuts the pay of its workers, private sector employers will then exploit the example, claiming pay cuts have become the norm.
Private sector workers stand to lose from this too. – Yours, etc,