in-cyprus 20 October 2024 - by Eleftheria Paizanou
Last Thursday, the Parliament voted to approve a general salary increase of 1.5% for public sector employees and retirees, despite some discontent voiced by members of certain political parties.
The decision, anticipated by many, received backing from MPs of the left-wing AKEL, as well as the centrist parties DIKO, DIPA, and EDEK. This legislation effectively ratifies an agreement reached last summer between the trade unions PASYDY, SEK, and PEO and the Minister of Finance.
In contrast, MPs from the Democratic Rally (DISY), ELAM, the Greens, as well as AKEL MP Irini Charalambidou and independent MP Kostis Efstathiou, opposed the government proposal, arguing it would further inflate the state payroll. They contended that the increases would disproportionately benefit higher earners, exacerbating inequality between public and private sector employees.
During the parliamentary debate, concerns were raised about the flat nature of the increase, which does not offer higher percentages to low-income workers. Critics also highlighted the lack of a direct connection between salary increases and employee productivity. Ironically, many of the same MPs had previously amended the evaluation system for public employees in response to complaints, thereby maintaining a system that often rated nearly all government workers as exceptional.
Despite claims from some employees that they were judged by stringent criteria, the latest report from the Public Service Commission revealed an average evaluation score of 8.74. A total of 9,658 employees were assessed, with average scores of 8.747 for evaluated staff, 8.751 for non-interchangeable personnel, and 8.724 for interchangeable personnel.
With this data, the MPs are cautioned against linking the salary hikes to productivity, especially since they reduced the weight of productivity in overall evaluations. Changes were made to the evaluation criteria, even though the legislation remains vulnerable to legal challenges.
The primary reason for the majority of parties agreeing to the evaluation changes appears linked to the voting power of public employees. Public servants and their families represent a significant voting bloc, and no party would want to alienate this group ahead of future elections. The actions of the majority reflect a disconnect between productivity and the forthcoming pay increases for employees starting this month.
Had the parties intended to send a strong message to the government regarding entrenched attitudes and poor practices, they could have voted against the bill and refused to endorse the salary increases. However, they refrained from doing so to avoid displeasing public sector employees and their families, who could retaliate at the polls.
Meanwhile, the opposing parties that voted against the bill did so knowing it secured the necessary votes from other legislators. At the same time, dissatisfaction was expressed both within these parties and among their supporters regarding their negative votes. Therefore, if political parties aim to make substantial reforms in the public sector, they should resist altering and diluting reforms merely for electoral gain, especially given the significant number of votes at stake from this particular demographic.
