Wages freeze tricky

The push by Councillor Rob Vinsen to restrict council staff wage and salary rises will be met with approval in many quarters.

The closeness of votes on the two motions suggest our elected officials were giving the matter serious consideration; firstly Mr Vinsen's motion to freeze pay rates in the next year, then cap them; and Philippa Baker-Hogan's attempt to limit any such rises to no more than 2 per cent.

The problem is we all want to be paid more. The difficulty is assessing what is fair for the work we do and what the employer can afford.

Many in the community will be of the opinion they didn't get a 3.7 per cent raise, so why should council staff? In the case of a local authority, there is an onus on the elected officials to keep all costs to a minimum, and never has this point been more salient than during the global financial crisis. We rely on our elected officials to keep rates rises down, while also providing the services and projects we want.

Staff pay is one area that can be managed. But it's also worth considering the benefit of the money paid out to staff, the calibre of staff that can be recruited and the costs of regular turnover.

It's a tough call: Restrict pay and you risk upsetting loyal staff, while limiting your ability to recruit for future vacancies, or pay too much and incur the wrath of the public.

Maybe the problem wasn't so much about the ideas behind the two motions but rather the length of time they might apply. Most of us would not be happy to be held to a deal in which our pay rates were restricted for a decade for no reason other than things are tight fiscally now.

There is a good case to have reservations about a restrictive wage and salary regime that limits reward for productivity.

What may be more worthy of consideration was how the council justified its original assessment of a 6 per cent average pay rise in the 10-year plan on the back of rises of 1.7 per cent, 2.8 per cent and 3.5 per cent.

Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz