‘You have been exit managed.” Imagine a manager saying this to disguise the harsh reality of retrenchment. The outcome, no matter what words are used is that the worker has been fired. This is what public service managers will be telling their workers if the government’s exit management strategy is implemented. Exit management is thus management-speak for reducing the public service. Little wonder then that workers are less than thrilled to be “exit managed”.
A smaller service
The strategy is contained in a document, Government’s Personnel Expenditure Review (1999), which outlines a smaller public service wage bill as a policy end, with retrenchments, outsourcing and voluntary severance packages as the means.
The motivation is two-fold.
First, the government argues that limiting spending on wages means more money is available for social delivery. However, the wage bill has actually decreased in real terms, together with spending on housing, infrastructure and other items. These across-the-board decreases in spending point to the government’s over-cautious approach to macro- economic policy, rather than a ballooning public service wage bill.
Second, the government argues that the strategy will lead to “efficiency gains”. These gains are not purely associated with money, but purportedly with improved service delivery. Thus, a range of “alternative service delivery mechanisms” (such as outsourcing) are proposed. For example, the government’s proposals indicate that for lower grade workers, they should:
- shift workers outside the public service into regional private companies that provide cleaning, laundry and other services;
- and where transfer of employment is not possible, workers will be given a retrenchment package.
Even supporters of outsourcing question whether this bulk transfer of lower skilled workers is plausible. For instance, the possibility of service breakdowns in hospitals or schools increases in this form of contracting arrangements. Unionists point out that the delivery of cleaning and laundry services are integral to service delivery, and that in most rural areas the economies of scale do not exist for regional companies to be viable.
Trends and processes
Exit management is the latest of many attempts over the past seven years to “right size” the public service. The first attempt took place in 1996 through a collective bargaining agree went. Unions agreed to the introduction of voluntary severance packages in exchange for a moratorium on employer-initiated retrenchments. The process was fraught with difficulties, with a large number of teachers and skilled staff leaving the public service. Ironically, many of these package recipients were rehired as “consultants” or on other contracts.
Later, the government and unions agreed to an audit process to determine the right size. However, this process has failed, with audits only being completed in the Northern Province and the Eastern Cape. According to media reports the audits were “squashed” as they revealed that most areas were, actually understaffed.
Underlying the failures of the audit process is a fundamental difference on what “right size” means. On the one hand, many in the government see the right size as one that meets fiscal targets. On the other hand, unions and some government officials argue that the right size must match numbers and skills to service delivery. Sadly, the government has missed the unique opportunity presented by the audits.
One largely successful exercise — which was separate from the audit process — is the teacher rationalisation and redeployment exercise. This exercise identified 41 505 vacancies and ensured that 16 651 educators have been redeployed. Even the Department of Education notes that the fact that the teachers’ unions shared in a major process of industrial re-structuring is indicative of the common ground that was found between the employers’ need to determine levels of operation and the right of employees to job security.
However, improving service delivery brought the parties together. The redeployment process indicates that joint processes between trade unions and the government on a right size can be achieved, provided improving service delivery motivates it. Moreover, even zealous attempts to reduce the public service have had to recognise the sharp decline in the public service.
According to the Department of Public Service and Administration the public service has declined by 133% (about 170 000 jobs) between 1995 and 1998. The decline in the number of public servants can be explained in terms of two trends.
- Retrenchments and retirements: the agreement on voluntary severance packages has influenced employment in the public service. At the same time, employees have been leaving the service due to age, health and other reasons.
- Government has not tilled vacant posts: the practice of public service employment indicates that the state has not been tilling posts once incumbents have left the public service. This is primarily due to fiscal constraints.
The glaring effect of this strategy has meant that important posts have remained unfilled. The unfilled post of chief financial officer at the Department of Welfare, for example, has been unfilled for two years. Other arrears of the public service-notably police stations, hospitals, schools and courts — experience similar shortages in the number of personnel employed.
Future directions
The question of the right size of the public service is an important public policy area as it affects the levels and quality of services provided to citizens. This poses a challenge to both the government and labour. The policy choice for labour is either to defend existing forms of worker security or to create new forms of security.
Progressive trade unions would also concern themselves with the impacts on service delivery. Experiences indicate that trade unions are willing to construct new forms of security and to restructure service delivery.
The government, on the other hand, needs to make a choice between slavishly adhering to fiscal limits or adopting a strategy that improves the capacities of the public service to deliver. The recently agreed-to job summit for the public service could provide the forum to develop a joint process towards determining a right size.
Ebrahim-Khalil Hassen is a public sector researcher at the National Labour and Economic Development Institute