TNAG-0822-FCO40-1029-Policy-on-salaries-for-civil-servants-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 326

11

IV.

The Freatley Report stated that a good exployer should be providing stability and continuity to the workers. So, based on this point, the IU said they were looking for geod employers in their surveys and that was why they were pot going to cover all the employers in Hong Kong and they used a good employer

4J. If there was an economic recession in the private sector, as a good employer, he would not cut the salary of their staff. If he did cut down the salary, he could not be a good employer and should not be included in the PIU report. Mise So said the SAT Unit had raised a number of queries in the previous meetings and although the PID had laid down a lot of principled in thaic procedures in taking survey, it svened to the "taff Side that the PIU failed to follow all these principles. At the same time, the scope of survey conducted by the FIU was very small. Since the PIU report was only a guideline for the Government and Miss So wondered why the Government could not accept the Productivity Centre report which was a better one so that they could use this report which 2 2 batboy one so that they would e

to support their claim for better pay.

60.

Kr. Hace said if one thought many companies in Hong Kong should have offered stability and continuity of employment, the Staff Side was being very unrealistic. He had no doubt he had in general explained in full the Productivity Cantre Report was not calculating the true money rate in the way that the PIU had, for instance, pension benefits. Fringe benefits were not included in the Productivity Centre Report. They just included any- thing readily quantified, for example, 13th months' pay. They had again discussed this many times. Be suggested to move on to more fundamental issue. He was not sure why the Staffside found faith in the Productivity Centre Report. Es could assure the Staff Side that when he had the meeting with Dr. Bright, it was found there was 25% difference in the salary of 1974/75 and 1975/76. Che really had to go through the two reports of 1974/75 and 1975/76 of Productivity Centre and could see the difference. Did not ask him why, it was complicated. However, he could assure the Staff Sidə that the pay the PIU worked out was the most sound evidence of the two. Incidentally, he was not quite sure why the Staff Side was so keen in the Productivity Centre Report. In all the grouping of the sectors, he believed the average was almply lower than the one calculated by the PIU at 31781.

She

51.

Miss V. 20 said as Mr. Mace said the Government was the best employer and there could not be better employers than the Government. could not quite agree to that point. The principle of good employer applied to the Government and to the private sector. Miss SO did not wish to spend any more time on arguing this point. If the Official Sidə wanted to answer this point, they could answer them in black and white. Regarding the PIU Report, Miss So said in the 17 companies chosen for the Burvey, one of them only required a shorthand speed of 50 wpm which was not a functional speed and that company should not be included in the survey. In the other company, the PIU had quoted the minimum point but not the naximm. In that case, that Company without salary scale could not be considered as a good employer too. Just now the Staff Side could point out two discrepancies in the PIU. At the same time, the Official Side could not explain their discrepancies. Concerning the Productivity Centre Report, Mr. Mace said that a rough average would show the figures provided by the Productivity Centre Report was lower than the figure provided by the PIU Report. Miss So wanted to point out that the Staff Side in finding the figures they were not going to include those which was to their advantage. They just wanted to find cut a fair and reasonable figure. If the Government wanted to include the utility and manufacturing sectors in calculating the salary scale for the SAT they would not mind. They would accept it, since it was a fair one and after so many meetings and after they had produced so much evidence they still could not zes the intention of the Official Side, they now wanted to know ehether the Official Side was going to support their proposals or not, wehther the Official Side was going to submit the proposals to the Finance Cormittee for approval.