adminrelief among them as they have been battling to make ends meet.
Although the move sounds noble it is an indictment on the part of Government that has failed to pay its workers, the majority of whom employ the bulk of the domestic workers.
With the majority of the civil servants in the country getting less than US$300, the new salaries become untenable among state employees.
Workers in the private sector are equally getting less as most of their salaries are heavily depended on the movement in salaries of state employees.
A recent survey by labour movements shows that private sector wages and salaries are barely above US$250.
Only workers in voluntary organisations and in management levels in the country are getting salaries above the US$500 mark and can manage to pay the US$85-US$100 margin set by the Ministry of Labour and Social Service.
These few can pay the wages set and remain with a few dollars to cater for other needs.
With all its intended good purpose, the decision to award domestic workers salaries of up US$100 smacks at Government’s failure to honour its promises to give its workers a substantial pay rise.
Simple arithmetic shows that before doing anything the bulk of Government workers would be remaining with only US$200 for all other expenses after paying domestic workers.
Deduct rentals, electricity and water charges and then the civil servant remains with a paltry US$100 to cover all other expenses that include educational and food expenses.
The wage adjustment clearly means half of a civil servant’s salary will go to the domestic worker.
With tight budgets among civil servants the country is not encouraging a culture of saving among its employees.
The allowances, while “reasonable” thus proves unaffordable on most households who are already experiencing massive hardship due to an underperforming economy, rising costs of goods against dwindling income.
Increase in wages for domestic workers need to take a number of things into cognisance among them the living arrangements, accommodation and prevailing salary rates.
Surely if the money applies only to those domestic workers who are only housed at the employers place but providing own food it makes some sense.
But for those who reside with the employers and get food and other supplies from the main house, the wages are untenable and would need some negotiation between the two parties.
Putting the wage rate as a hard rule will not jeopardise the financial position of the bulk of the country’s workforce but see civil servants failing to afford the domestic workers.
The increments should also mean positive adjustments to other workers particularly those in industry and farming areas.
Taking the situation of the civil servants, Government ought to reconsider its position.
The Minister needed to just look at how much her secretary or driver earns to establish if they can afford to pay the domestic workers the new pay.
Labour analysts said there is bound to be a lot of position movement of the wages, as this would depend on the amount available and the need for employment on the part of the worker.
They said that with the ballooning unemployment figures in the country, domestic workers would surely opt for less as long as they can get a roof over their heads and some food on the table.
They argue that it would not make sense for Government to peg the salaries at amounts that will not be adhered to by the bulk of the country workforce.
These increases in domestic workers’ wages to such a figure will not make sense without addressing the salaries of the majority of workers.
Online Reporter