… As civil, local gov’t staff kick against provisions
Posted: The Chronicle |Wednesday, February 03, 2010
By Charles Takyi-Boadu
The Civil and Local Government Staff Association, Ghana (CLOGSAG) has raised issues over the government’s decision to implement the newly-introduced Single Spine Pay Policy (SSPP).
They claim their concerns have not been dully addressed, and as such, have indicated their preparedness to kick against their inclusion in the policy.
Addressing a news conference in Accra yesterday, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Association, James Amissah, threatened to reject their inclusion on the new salary structure, since, “this time round, it is look before we leap. If we are pressed to the wall, the person who is pursuing us, we will turn and face him,” he said.
Though the Association claims it does not have any intention whatsoever to disrupt or frustrate the implementation of the SSPP, Mr. Amissah noted, “we would not accept any pay policy that would disadvantage our members during its implementation.”
This is because it has continued to draw attention to issues relating to internal and external inequities in Placements/Gradings, which tends to put members of the CLOGSAG at a disadvantage.
The Association finds it strange that the recommended placements for various grades of its constituents on the Single Spine Salary Structure (SSSS), which is a component of the Single Spine Pay Policy (SSPP), are lower than those on the Ghana Universal Salary Structure (GUSS).
According to the group, a closer examination of the placements also reveals that two grades haveg in some instancesg been put on the same level, with one high and the other low, implying that an officer could be promoted and still remain on the same level.
The Association argued, “such an arrangement was found to be problematic by a technical team constituted by the (then) Ministry of Public Sector Reforms in 2008.” The technical team was said to have recommended that the horizontal movement on a level should be used to reward performance, whilst promotion should involve a vertical movement.
The CLOGSAG also noted that out of the 1,306 jobs in the services, only 26 were placed on ‘high steps’ constituting 2%, whilst the remaining 1,280 jobs (98%) were placed on ‘low steps’, stressing: “in certain instances placements have been done without regard to job content, but rather to the place of work, thereby introducing inequity across service classifications.”
The Association said it cannot fathom why most of these concerns had not been dully addressed, but yet the ‘supposed’ Fair Wages and Salaries Commission (FWSC) was pushing for the implementation of the SSSS without any comprehensive guidelines on the SSPP, though the latter is a component of the former.
The Acting Executive Secretary noted, “you cannot deal with the SSSS in isolation,” asking “is it not strange that the FWSC would want to negotiate with stakeholders the base pay on the SSSS, when it has not developed the relevant policy guidelines for implementation?”
Meanwhile, the CLOGSAG has persistently advised that any new salary regime, be it SSSS or whatever, should either retain or improve upon the prevailing annual increments.
When asked what would happen if their concerns were not duly addressed, the Acting Executive Secretary said: “the time will come,” and asked the government and the implementing agencies of the new salary policy, to do the proper thing before things get out of hand.
Later, Mr. Amissah told The Chronicle in an interview: “we are already on GUSS, so if I realise that it is going to disadvantage me, I will force and remain on the GUSS,” asking, “others opted out of the GUSS in 1999, what happened to them?”