Government system for setting pay adjustments is tried and trusted

Few bosses go so far to decide pay rises together with their staff. Our government is arguably a role model for other employers. For decades, it has engaged staff representatives in pay adjustment, which is based on a survey of private sector pay trends, the cost of living, the public finances and staff morale. The representatives can follow through the survey, question the data and make counterproposals. It is seen as the most credible method yet to adjust the pay of the 160,000-strong civil service.

The decision by three police associations to pull out is therefore puzzling. They walked out of the Pay Trend Survey Committee in June, after the survey suggested pay rises in the range of 2.55 per cent to 3.92 per cent - short of the 4.4 per cent inflation. The system, they argued, was unfair to the police because there were no comparable jobs in the private sector. Instead of adhering to the pay trend in society, the 30,000 police officers deserve a separate mechanism, the groups said.

Admittedly, the job of a policeman is one of the most dangerous and demanding. They are responsible for the city's law and order as well as the safety of seven million people. They are therefore perfectly right in saying their job is unique. But so are the other disciplined services and civil service jobs. If they do not have a problem adhering to figures drawn from private companies, it has to be asked whether police officers are justified in rejecting the mechanism. After all, the survey has been generally well received over the years. Currently, there are dozens of departments and hundreds of grades within the government. It would hardly be manageable if each department cites its own circumstances to demand a tailor-made method of setting pay rises.

The last thing the police associations want is to give the public the impression that they only accept rules and results to their liking. The system has been tested for decades. Any room for improvement can be discussed over the negotiating table. That is how the staff side can influence decisions and make their voice heard. Opting out is hardly in their interests.