The labour union is locked in a tussle with the government of Botswana over two issues. The first one, and not in any order, is the Directorate of Public Service Management’s (DPSM) decision to review local travel allowances, popularly known as per diem, for public servants.
Previously, public officers were expected to account for their expenses when on mission. However, to reduce paperwork, the government decided to provide per diem to cover accommodation and meals for government employees’ travel expenses.
Another consideration was to allow small accommodation providers, especially citizen-owned facilities, to benefit from government travel. The government’s view was that only formal and large hotels benefited; sometimes at the expense of small citizen-owned operations.
But as the per diem policy was being implemented, it became clear that the intended beneficiaries of the reform lost out. There are even reports of public employees minimising their travel expenses, to the extent that they do not sleep in hotels. This, obviously, had a negative bearing on hotels.
Unfortunately, because of the Botswana government’s large footprint in the economy, hotel occupancy rates declined significantly. Some operations, especially the small ones that were supposed to benefit, had to close their doors, sending employees onto the streets. As it turned out, the objectives were not achieved.
And these unintended consequences are often missed in the current debate. The unions, in a self centred way, only focus on government employees and want them to continue to enjoy those benefits. So while they profess to care about employees’ welfare, they seem to be selective and only seem to care about the welfare of employees who are in government. So the conclusion is that the hotel workers are not in government, and the fact that some of them have lost jobs doesn’t matter. That right there brings the sincerity of the unions into question.
The unions are also vehemently opposed to any government moves to restructure the public service and to separate some employees through a voluntary separation process. The fact that the wage bill is not only bloated but also unsustainable is a grave issue that should concern all of us. However, the unions do not seem to care about any of that.
They are just comfortable with taxpayers sending money to the fiscus to sustain a bloated civil service. This is totally unfair to the taxpayer, who should be allowed to keep as much as possible of their hard-earned money in their pocket and use it in any way they deem fit. And the unions are acting in a manner that can only be described as irresponsible.
It is also important to remember that the government is responsible for the welfare of all its citizens, not just the unionised staffers in government. The reforms of the per diem do not take away any benefits from the civil servants. It also does not result in them losing jobs.
We need to recognise that the government will not always have the means to pay for an overstaffed civil service. The signs are already there that maintaining such a large workforce is not viable.
The Transformation Project, implemented to its logical conclusion, should lead to higher productivity levels in government. Higher productivity levels lead to prosperity and jobs. I’m gobsmacked that some are opposed to that.