Talk of Raises on New Years Eve

Talk of Raises on New Years Eve
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 1, 2011

Today is Lunar New Years Eve. We hope businesses have a prosperous New Year. We hope every employee receives a raise.

Should civil service employees receive a pay raise? Nearly two months have passed since last year's five cities elections. But we still have no clear answer. Proponents say a civil service pay raise would encourage private sector pay raises. Opponents say a civil service pay raise would increase the national deficit. Premier Wu Den-yih meanwhile, spoke of "five conditions," and whetted everyone's appetite. He appeared to be waiting for the right time to fill in the amount. Civil service pay raises are supposed to be political decisions. They are supposed to be made by the the premier. He is supposed to assume responsibility. Why must he complicate the matter? As for the long-term, the civil service salary structure must undergo thorough reform. Indiscriminate feeding at the government trough must be eliminated.

Current proponents of a civil service pay raise argue that civil service employees have not received a pay raise in five years. They need a boost to their morale. They should share in last year's record high economic growth, which established a new 21 year high. A civil service pay raise would set an example for the private sector, proponents argue. It would promote private sector consumption. The fact that civil servants have not received a pay raise in five years is a valid argument for a pay raise now. The other three justifications however, are specious. Last year the economic growth rate exceeded 10% only because the year before we were in a depression. If we combine the two, we discover that the real gross domestic product (GDP) has not increased that much. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would set an example for the private sector. Consider the recent results of a private poll. Most companies adjust their salaries independently. Government pay raises would have limited impact. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would promote private sector consumption. A civil service pay raise means an increase in government spending. If overall government expenditures are increased, this amounts to a hidden tax increase. Any increase in consumption would be offset by tax increases on the public. Tax increases on the public would force them to reduce consumption. Therefore making the public foot the bill for a civil service pay raise, merely because they have experienced a recovery, in the hope that it will promote consumption, inverts cause and effect. The return will not justify the investment.

At the same time, the arguments against a civil service pay raise are equally far-fetched. The most common argument is that the government has been running a deficit year after year. The government is deep in debt, the argument goes. Where is it going to get the money for a pay raise? If this argument holds, must we wait until the government pays off its debt or balances the budget before giving civil servants a pay raise? If so, civil servants would never get a pay raise. Therefore, whether civil servants should receive a pay raise, has little relationship with the government's fiscal circumstances. It may not require an increase in the government's annual expenditures. It may involve juggling the government limited financial resources. This power belongs to the premier. It is his decision. It is his responsibility. He must allocate government spending in accordance with his policy goals. A civil service pay raise would of course be one of his many policy options.

Premier Wu's "five conditions" rhetoric was clearly superfluous. Premier Wu Den-yih has confronted the issue of civil service pay raises many times recently. His standard answer is that he must consider fourth quarter exports, the economic growth rate, this year's tax revenues, the overall price situation, private sector profits, and year-end bonuses. Premier Wu cited specific criteria. But he never cited a specific pay raise threshold. Therefore any civil service pay raise would ultimately depend on Premier Wu's policy priorities, i.e., his whims. His decision may depend on first quarter tax revenues.

Therefore, the civil service pay issue will continue to simmer. It may become next year's presidential election hot potato. It will be difficult not to politicize it. Therefore the Executive Yuan should explain its position on second half civil service pay raises. We urge a timely and appropriate decision. This will avoid excessive speculation and too many irrelevancies. This will minimize the political impact. Failure to do so could increase social frictions, incite confrontations, and make the final decision even more difficult.

The Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan can also take advantage of the civil service pay raise issue. They can conduct a comprehensive review of civil service salary levels, structures, and their connection to civil service employee effectiveness. Civil service salaries have long been considered lower than employee salaries in general. In fact, lower level civil service salaries are higher than lower level employee salaries in general. Higher level civil service salaries are lower than salaries for upper management. The question is how to change this wage structure. How can the government widen the gap between low level civil service employees and high level civil service employees? How can the government compete with the private sector, and attract more people into government service?

Civil service employees are often paid the same amount regardless of their job performance. How can the government address this problem? Salaries must be linked to job performance. The government must attempt to create such links. Such reforms will surely provoke a backlash. But they should receive the support of dedicated civil servants. We have experienced a recovery. We have undergone a cabinet reshuffle. Therefore we should implement reforms. We must engage in creative destruction, create a new generation civil service salary appraisal system, thereby enabling the government to enrich its talent pool.

小年夜談加薪：應帶動改善公務員績效
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.02.01

今天小年夜，祝願新年百業興旺，人人加薪。

公務員要不要加薪一案，從去年五都選前提出迄今逾兩個月，還是沒有個明確的答案；主張加的說可帶動民間加薪，反對加的說會加大國庫赤字。行政院長吳敦義則以「五狀況」說吊著大家的胃口，彷彿只等著時機成熟之後填上金額。以今年情勢而言，公務員加薪原本就是個政治決定，完全看閣揆願不願意承擔，何必複雜化？至於長期，公務員薪資結構則必須做徹底的改革，打破政府這碗大鍋飯。

目前贊成公務員加薪的立論，大致不脫公務員五年未加薪需要激勵士氣、分享去年經濟成長率創廿一年新高的果實、可帶動民間加薪風潮、促進民間消費等。但除五年未加薪這項外，另三者均似是而非；其中，去年經濟成長率超過百分之十，是因前年大衰退，一減一加後實質國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）增加並不多；至於示範效果說，近來各民間民調機構出爐的結果，絕大多數企業的調薪是走自己的路，受政府加薪影響有限；在促進民間消費方面，公務員加薪就是政府支出增加，若政府歲出總額因此而擴大，就是隱性的加稅，即使可以增加消費，其效果也被對民眾加稅抵銷泰半。故而，為促進消費、讓民眾有感復甦而為公務員加薪，是錯把目標當手段，實不足取。

不過，反對公務員加薪的理由，也是甚為牽強。最常見的理由就是政府財政連年赤字、負債累累，政府哪裡來的本錢加薪？如果這個理由成立的話，豈不是要等到政府還清債務或財政平衡之時，才是公務員加薪之日？那可就是遙遙無期了。因此，公務員調薪與否，與財政狀況的關聯性低，因為它可在不增加政府歲出總額的前提下，與其他政策共同競逐有限的政府財政資源。這也正是行政院長的權力、選擇及責任，他必須依據他的政策目標，對各項政事支出的優先性進行預算分配，而公務員加薪自然也可以成為其政策選項之一。

準此，吳揆的「五狀況」說，就明顯是畫蛇添足了。近來吳敦義院長在面對公務員加薪的問題時，通篇一律的標準答案是：看去年第四季進出口表現、經濟成長率、看今年初稅收、看整體物價情勢，以及看企業尾牙、年終獎金發放情形等做決定。然而，吳揆看似具體的指標，卻沒有設下明確的調整門檻，因而公務員薪資要調不調，其實還是取決於吳揆政策優先性選擇的一念之間，並且可能要到第一季稅收結果出爐後再決定。

所以，公務員加薪的議題將持續發酵，也可能會成為明年總統大選前的熱門話題之一，想不泛政治化考量都難；也因此，行政院終究要為今年下半年公務員調不調薪給個明確的說法。吾人建議還是及時當機立斷為宜，以免此一話題過度炒作下摻入太多雜料，不只政治效應的邊際效益愈來愈低，反而可能升高贊成與反對者的社會摩擦與對立，讓決策變得更加困難。

另一方面，行政院及考試院也可運用這次公務員加薪的議題，全面性檢討公務員薪資水準、結構及其與績效的連結等問題。長期以來，公務員薪資水準普遍被認為低於受雇員工的平均薪資，但實際狀況是基層公務員薪資高於低年資勞工、但高階公務員不如民間高階經理人，因而關鍵是在如何改變這樣的計價結構，拉大高低階公務員的薪資差距，使政府具有與民間爭才的能力，進而吸引更多人才到政府服務。

此外，如何打破公務員不論績效優劣，都能吃到政府大鍋飯的現況，也是重要課題；而調薪與績效連結已是趨勢，政府應設法納入這類設計。這樣的改革當然會遭遇反彈，但相信也會同時獲得力爭上游的公務員支持；既然復甦須有感、內閣改組要有感，改革自然更應有感，庶幾得以大破大立，創建新世代的公務員薪資暨考核制度，充實現代化政府所需要的人才庫。