Omissions and commissions

This is hard to swallow. If there was no move to review implementation, what would a cabinet meeting have discussed that necessitated postponing the notification? Then too, bureaucrats are known for excessive, not too little, caution. It seems uncharacteristic for a long-serving bureaucrat such as the Cabinet Secretary to jump the gun and make an announcement to the media without being certain of his facts and having explicit authorisation.

Subramanian said in no uncertain terms on television that the government was fed up with the opposition to the pay award when it had gone beyond even the Pay Commission8217;s recommendations. It seems hard to see the little drama as anything but a case of cold feet and confusion, and does the government little credit. For some reason the decision to withhold implementation fell out of favour in the space of a few hours and, since it would have been too embarrassing to confess to such a rapid flip-flop, misunderstanding became the explanation. It would have made much more sense for the government to just stick to its guns.

Reasons of credibility apart, it would have been no bad thing to postpone the award. It would have been a message to a bunch of unions that enough is enough and that if they will not accept what is available, they may have to do without anything at all. The bottomline is that government employees especially lower-grade ones have no business demanding huge pay rises as a matter of right. As to a fairer distribution of pay with the same overall wage bill, that does not stand up to scrutiny. This is a country where government has played the role of a charity employer. Since people are not hired on the basis of real demand, and because the supply of unskilled labour is hugely in excess of demand, these employees cannot look forward to handsome pay rises. Let people first agree to huge cutbacks in government jobs before they ask for attractive salaries. The salary levels recommended by the Pay Commission are in tune with the laws of demand and supply. The government has been losing bright people who would in the past join the IAS, whereas lower-grade employees are easily substitutable. No one who has been in a government office needs telling how work has to be created for lower-grade staff which can be done by a fraction of the number, creating feudal conditions in supposedly progressive corridors. It is a reflection of political timidity and union entrenchment that such staff should demand parity in pay increases. Monday8217;s announcement was an opportunity to drive this home. Now it has been blown, with loss of credibility to boot.