With the upcoming budget, the unions have, as usual, made demands in the pre-budget consultations. Weekly speaks to Radhakrishna Sadien, president of the Government Services Employees’Association, and asks him to justify the demands in light of the current economic situation. He also gives his opinion on the proposed health insurance scheme for civil servants.

Let’s start with the pre-budgetary consultations. As soon as that started, you came up with a long shopping list which, to say the least, is unrealistic. Don’t unions ever think about the interests of the country?  
We, trade unions, are here to represent workers, but there has been a shift in our work. We now don’t only concern ourselves with wages and work conditions, but with other things that affect the workers and their families as well such as issues such as the environment, good governance, corruption etc. So, each time we send proposals to the government, what we want are changes to improve conditions in the whole country.
 
In practice, though, what you have been fighting for is more money for the civil servants. 
Not really. We have also called for the reinstatement of the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development as that will bring about a long-term vision for the long and medium term following a lot of consultation and an inclusive approach of getting everybody involved – government, private sector and civil society so that everybody knows where we are going.
 
And you have also asked for a Pay Research Bureau (PRB) report ahead of time, haven’t you? The latest report came out only two years ago and you are asking for another one now when the gap between two reports should be five years? 
In our memorandum sent to the government, we raised 24 points. There are two points that concern the public service. The first thing is adjustment of salaries. With the introduction of the minimum wage, section 9 of the Minimum Wage Act says that the PRB and the National Remuneration Board (NRB) should come with a salary adjustment. This is the law they have to comply with.
 
Fine but why should that be now? 
The next PRB will come into effect only in January 2021.

Why should you have Christmas before Christmas? 
The minimum wage has been applicable since January 2018 and refers to both the public and private sector. The ball is now in the government’s court. The law that has passed was passed by this government and section 9 of this law makes provision for that. So when they themselves have made provision for that in a law that they introduced, all we are asking is that they stick to the law.
 
But why bring the PRB forward? 
The PRB will take into account whatever adjustments have to be made. The PRB is not just about salary; it’s also about recommendations on structure and service and it is not necessarily entirely in favour of the workers. 

Is that why you are lobbying for it to be brought forward? To penalise the workers? 
The PRB in its report has created a lot of anomalies. We cannot wait for three more years to have those anomalies redressed. There are a lot of reform initiatives being taken which the PRB has to take into account as well.
 
Who is using who here? The unions pushing their agenda at a time when the government is looking for votes or the prime minister using the unions’ demands to fork out more electoral bribes? 
The issue of the PRB report coming out earlier is a recommendation by Financial Secretary Dev Manraj. He was the one who recommended that it should come out every three years.
 
Preferably just before an election?
We knew an election was coming and the request for PRB to come out earlier was nothing new. Why can’t the report come out earlier, after three years? It just happens to coincide with an election.
 
Oh, just a coincidence? 
Not always. So far, 50 per cent of the recommendations of the last PRB report have not been implemented because of problems of interpretation. So we believe that another report should come out with clear-cut recommendations so it is not subject to dispute.
 
So every time there is an election, you will ask for a PRB report? The country is already burdened with debts. 
I will say that the PRB is not like Father Christmas…

Isn’t it? We have yet to hear of a PRB report recommending lowering salaries and increasing productivity. 
Don’t forget the public service had 83,000 employees 10 years ago. Now it has only 43,000 and jobs that used to be performed in the past are still being done. So you need to pay people more when you are not recruiting more people.
 
Talking of recruitment, we have seen lots of recruitments by ministers rather than the Public Service Commission (PSC). We did not hear the unions objecting to that, did we? 
I was the first to have objected to the delegation of powers from the PSC to ministers. The PSC is responsible for recruitment and promotion. I met the chairman of the PSC and told him that people were abusing the delegated powers system and that the recruitment is not on competence and qualifications. Government has recruited 5,000 people in different sectors and this recruitment was not done in the proper manner. That’s why we told government that we need to have a reform of the PSC. This institution should not be headed by people who will simply say ‘yes, minister’ to any request. We need a judge of the Supreme Court to ensure that all interviews are recorded on video.
 
How much of these requests have you managed to push through? 
These are in our memorandum.
 
The ministers have recruited their agents, friends and relatives while competent people are outside queuing up for jobs! 
We are not parliament. We can only submit our papers. We are criticising and so is the Audit Office, but it is up to parliament to decide.
 
There is the perception that as far as recruitment is concerned, this government has exceeded all limits of nepotism and abuse of power. Do you agree with that? 
Section 113 of the constitution provides that after an election, a government can lay off any employee appointed with the approval of the minister. You know in parastatal organisations, 80 per cent of appointments are done by the board, subject to a minister’s approval.
 
Has there been more or less recruitment of one’s cronies than before, according to you? 
There is a lot. They should not have done that. I cannot compare, but there is the perception of blatant nepotism and names keep on appearing in the press. The public perception is that a lot of positions in government and parastatals are now occupied by employees close to people in government, even relatives. I think we need to amend that part of the constitution that allows the PSC to delegate its powers to ministers.”. It’s very unfair and not good for the country.
 
Can we talk about the health insurance that seems to have come out of nowhere? 
This was in the PRB report in 2008. I am trying to understand why it suddenly became a subject of the prime minister’s May Day speech. 

What is the answer, in your opinion? 
When this measure was first announced, I was against it for one basic reason. Government is currently providing a free health service. Now, you cannot tell your own people to go to private clinics while you are investing in hospitals! You are investing in a series of specific types of hospital services. So we are trying to understand the logic of this measure. We have never been consulted on this as a union. 

Somebody from the Civil Service Ministry said that you were a member of the steering committee that came up with this proposal. Were you not involved? 
Never! I have never been involved. 

Still, do you agree with the measure?
No! The government is providing free health care, has its own health sector and is building good hospitals. Now it is saying that it is going to pay 50 per cent for civil servants to go into private clinics? Don’t forget that medical schemes come with all sorts of restrictions. When you go to a private clinic, your insurance will tell you that you are not covered for this or that. I hope there is not in this scheme an agenda to finance some clinics or insurance companies, using public officers.
 
Which companies or clinics are you aiming at?  
I don’t know but it’s not fair on the population or on the civil servants. We did not ask for that. Spend the money elsewhere like in public hospitals.
 
Instead of being grateful…
There is nothing to be grateful about. Take, for example, the case of a civil servant when he retires and needs the hospital the most. How will he contribute? The government is not going to pay throughout his life. What we are asking instead is to use that money to upgrade the existing health services. Many, like the Cardiac Centre and Colonoscopy Centre, are better than in the private sector. Let’s invest more in equipment and better facilities. Why do we have to send people to India for surgery? Why not invest it here and help us become a medical hub for the region?

Are you saying that the government concocted this and said the request came from the unions? 
It did not come from the unions.
 
Did it come from the PRB report?
You know, when the PRB comes up with its recommendations, most of the time, these are based on the government’s requests. That’s why we are asking for an independent PRB.

Are you saying that the PRB is not independent? 
Looking at the recommendations, it’s not totally independent. It has never been. It should become like the director of audit.
 
So the government is coming up with a measure to win the hearts of the civil servants just before an election and the civil servants themselves don’t want it. What am I missing? 
I don’t know. If the government sees this as something they can use, they won’t get the unions by their side.
 
Aren’t there members of your unions who would rather go to the clinic if the government is paying 50%? 
At first, people didn’t realise that this might be a trap. Let’s say there are 50,000 people involved. Insurance companies will look at the numbers and decide which clinic to send you to. If you want to help the civil servants, why not simply give them the money and let them decide? I mean there is something very fishy behind all this. You know, election or no election, if there is something good like the minimum wage, we say it’s good. But when something is fishy like the  health insurance proposed, I will say it is fishy because I am here to represent my members. 

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, Weekly magazine (Price: Rs 25) or subscribe to Weekly for Rs110 a month. (Free delivery to your doorstep). Email us on: weekly@lexpress.mu