public sector workers is unclear and does not appear related to level of awards. Some workers are recommended a to s per cont incrcase while others 15 to 18 per cent or higher but presumably they are required to change just as much.
T his criticism from the right will no doubt help selling the report but the fact that such criticisms can be made only exposes the thinking behind benchmarking. It is possible to reply to O'Leary that the level of vacancies and staff turnover as well as issues of motiva. tion and morale must be taken into account when judging the relative attractiveness public SCOTT employment - but this is only to argue on the ground of the enemy:
Worker's attitude to what constitutes equity should not be that of bosses, employer's representatives, management consultants or High Court "a workers enquiry into public sector pay should have been set up, one made up of the workers themselves with the collaboration of their private sector colleagues. Such an enquiry would have been everything the Benchmarking body isn't: open, transparent and accountable" judges. If workers in the public secfelt thes were losing oul, a workers enquiry into public sector pay should have been set up, one made up of the workers themselves with the collaboration of their pricolleagues. Such enquiry would have been everything the Benchmarking body isn't: open, transparent and accountable.
This report is an ultimatum, a classic case of divide and rule where some workers offered 25pare and others 25 percent. generally ALYC bigger increases to higher paid staff and discriminates against women who fall disproportionately into those sectors offered lower rises. agreed in total or not at all. This is a unica approach by the stic our a divided one by the workers where every individual union has to take its own view under pressure from ICTU and other unions, where workers may have done better, to acCep only is there no justification for any of the recommendations given but the whole exercise was designed to ensure none would nave to oc - the Benchmarking Body dissolved after the report and made clear no clarification would be given.
The totally spurious reasons given for this approach, that the confidentiality of those who assisted and advised the body should be maintained and that it was set up as part of the PPF and must therefore fold, only reveals the cynical nature of the exercise. Explaining the figures does not require revealing anyone's identity and since the PPF is still going why isn't the Benchmarking body hanging around to explain itself?
The statement by the Nursing Allance should be supportca. Inc Nursing Alliance feels that the henchmarking process should be accountable, and its recommendations should be justified and open to verification by the unions representing the grades affected' This should be the demand of ever If this is not accepted, the report of public sector workers called to Shales increases that really are equitable and respond to the real needs of public sector workers. This is tbe
Outlook