Castellanos says GOB “recording balance” offer needs closer look

Jose Castellanos, says, there is more to GOB salary proposal than meets the eye. Castellanos said that despite the union’s best intentions, GOB has been very crafty about how it intends to follow through on the adjustment and as a result, teachers and public officers will not get what they thought they had bargained for.

vlcsnap-2013-02-12-19h42m14s210I think there’s two sides to the coin.  One – On the Government side, I think it’s an excellent formula for them. The thing is a beautiful, fabulous formula because when you do the swat analysis, the strength and weakness and opportunity, it’s a beautiful formula. As to the weakness, it’s unstable.  It [calls on ] Government to basically, if they discover oil or gold or anything like that to say, all I give is 19%. You have a ceiling. And if things are bad, let’s say they have a negative number, a zero, then I give you nothing. And that is great because over the last 31 years, using that formula, you would have gotten nothing, negative number.  The second recommendation, which I think is to be made is that instead of using the growth in the recording balance, you use the recording balance itself, tremendous difference. Because the growth is very unstable, up and down. And the other one is less probability of getting a negative number.

But Castellanos does have some recommendations for when the two sides meet again:

I wouldn’t be able to give you an opinion on that, for the simple reason that I would have to meet with the Financial Secretary and reconcile numbers.  It’s very obvious that at that meeting I think the Government side was able to convince the Union that they could not, otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to the grace period of one year.  But I look at numbers.  I don’t make opinion based on what I think. Unless I see the numbers, I cannot really comment on it. But from what transpired at the meeting, you would get the impression that they cannot.

And finally, Castellanos comments on his performance with the APSSM:

I said I think it was an error of judgement on my part. If anything I would have gone out on Friday, and would have departed on Friday. But there is no question in my mind that I would have left.  I don’t want to cogitate about what would have happened or wouldn’t have happened in the past. Now I’m loking about the future.  That’s where I stand in terms of giving an objective picture about what it means for people who are remaining in the Public Service for the next four years.

About the Author