Unintended consequences would follow any pension changes

Briefly, a poor offer was put forward by them and was rejected. Consequently, a slightly better offer was put forward with the proviso that if it was challenged, the previous offer would be reverted to. Blackmail in anybody's language.

The more reasonable course of action would be to offer these reforms to new entrants only, as Jersey did, though this has been dismissed by the employer.

The case for reforms has still not satisfactorily been made and the States are of the opinion that a contract made with its employees can be nullified, i.e. torn up.

This puts the employee in a quandary, whether to stand firm and test the resolve of the employer and rely on the integrity of a legally binding contract, or settle for the slightly better offer in the (probably misguided) hope that it will not be reformed again in the future.

Presumably, the long-term goal is for the States to save itself money, though I believe they may be looking at it too simplistically.

For the island of Guernsey to function effectively, there needs to be collective goodwill.

There has long been an understanding that in terms of salary, the States does not match the private sector in many comparable roles, but on balance, the employee would be well treated and enjoy a reasonable standard of living in retirement.

In return, the employee would go conscientiously about his or her business, often with no thought for the limits of their job description.

Imagine a situation where the collective goodwill is replaced by contempt, where the workforce no longer feels valued and is constantly in fear of changes being foisted upon them, and even for their employment. If the States feel that they can save money with these reforms, they may be overlooking the law of unintended consequences, which (often cited but rarely defined) is that actions of people – and especially of government – always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

For example, the relatively stable workforce will be replaced by one with a higher staff turnover, dramatically increasing training and equipping costs, particularly in the more specialised roles. Outside labour may need to be drafted in, leading to relocation and settlement costs. More sick days may be incurred due to stress. Even the subtle effect of a dissatisfied employee who would previously have stayed at his desk or bench for an extra 10 or 20 unrecorded minutes to finish a piece of work.

A more immediate consequence for our policy makers to consider should be, what would happen if Guernsey suffered a winter of discontent?

If these proposed changes led to widespread industrial action, the infrastructure of Guernsey would grind to a halt and the costs, monetary and reputational, would be immense. The employer/employee relationship would suffer irreparable damage and the aforementioned consequences and countless more would come into play.

I feel the employee has a duty to themselves, their colleagues, and even to their employer to resist change that is detrimental to them.

Policy makers take heed: unintended consequences will always come into play, as they have throughout history. You are no smarter than the previous generations.

GRANT HUTCHINS,

artisan@cwgsy.net.