ú
10
In this aspect, the Civil Service Branch did not use the median point calculated in the PIU report. The Civil Service Branch was contradicting itself.
16.
The Chairman said there must be some misunderstanding. The median point was applied to the masimum of the scale only.
57.
Mr. Mace agreed that.
58.
Miss V. Są aid in the PIU it had not pointed out that cedian point chould be used in fixing the maximum only. It only stated that the Government, being a good employer, should not set ita salary scale lower than the median point.
58.
Mr. lace said he tried hard not to be involved in interpretation of the figures. However, one or two things the Staff Side might like to hear about The difference between working in a commerce and civil service enviroment. If the Civil Vervice Branch were to take the statistics or data that they had provided in the survey precisely, he was of the view that there would be a lot of things like continuity employment. People did enjoy
ip, the civil service because of continuity. This could not be
Each officer must have his own thoughts. he most important factor was the need in the Civil Service to precerve some form of stability. If he was asked to go out and find what the private sector paid for cement nixing workers, he could probably find that the Government was under-paying labourers in the building sites of PD (because MTR provided a lot of short- tera employment). Hughly compared with some other types of labourers, the Civil ~ervice Branch had to think for reasonable stability over a long period. That was why the Civil Service Branch followed the facts they produced. He could understand and appreciate how a civil service pay could be found. lie should not discuss with the Staff Side of the Productivity
entre report. In fact, he had a meeting with Dr. Wright, the Director of Productivity Centre in April concerning the pay trend of last year. The Froductivity Centre report produced a figure of 3 but he produced a figure of 7.5. The Senior Civil Service Council finally accepted his figurea as moze accurate.
59.
Miss So referred to their letter dated 11th May 1977 at page 3, appendix E, paragraph 5, which read as follows :
"Me 1973 FIV Raport, Änpendix E(paze 2) Fars, 5
The Priestley Report provided a definition of a good employer in personnel management terms, rather than in salary terms, as follows :
para. 146 "Thə good employer is not necessarily the one who offers the highest rates of pay. Be seeks rather to provide stability and continuity of employment and consults with representatives of his employees upon changes that affect both their remuneration and their condition of work, He provides adequate facilities for training and advancement and carried on a range of practices which today constitute good management whether they be formularisediin joint consultation along Civil Service lines or not. Such euployees are likely to be anong the more progressive in all aspects of management policy. Their rutes of remuneration will compare well with those of the generality of employers, will nove readily but not atypically upward when the trend is in that direction and will be rather more stable than most when the trend is domwaris."