Pay and purpose
Government employees should be better paid. But government must also be restructured and reformed.
Like certain bamboos, pay commissions bloom after long but naturally ordained spans of time. But announcing the Seventh Pay Commission for central government employees smack at the beginning of the run-up to a general election is liable to invite speculation. To avoid the charge that it is trying to please several million voters who are or were in safari suits or other government vardi, the government could have started the process months earlier. However, the government can still approach this central pay hike with some creativity. Government employees should be better paid, but what are they being paid for?
Government initiatives routinely underperform because they are locked within the steel frame of pay structures. Staffers are not offered performance-linked incentives. Poor performance has no impact on pensions and benefits, the prized portion of the lifetime package. Certainty of advancement needs to be tempered by transparent and meaningful appraisal systems. Besides, there are far too many foot soldiers and insufficient investment in generalship, though a modern administration needs exactly the opposite — fewer attendants and more executives. At the lower levels, government salaries may be several times the compensation offered for corresponding posts in the private sector. At higher levels, the differential may be reversed. This is an anomaly that needs to be rationalised if the government is to attract professional talent at every level, by lateral induction, and if government jobs are not to be seen as lifelong sinecures where the main point is to secure a good pension.