TWO of my favourite people have been at it again. They are among my favourite people because they sometimes say things that make my blood boil, and that gives me the opportunity to ‘vent my spleen’ (what a wonderful phrase!).

From what I know of them, they are both likeable individuals, and it’s not because they are extreme in their views that I get upset. Indeed it’s precisely because they are expressing popularly held views that I get annoyed.

The first favourite person is the former chairman of the Chamber of Commerce who thinks that States workers are lucky to have a job in the current economic climate. He says they should be prepared to make sacrifices in terms of pay as many of their private sector colleagues have been forced to do.

Of course he’s right to a certain extent, although you can’t help thinking that perhaps his statements have more to do with his well-known position on long-term States spending than to the current financial crisis.

But leaving that aside, you cannot let him get away with the assertion that the Council of Ministers has been ‘generous’ to States workers by only freezing pay and not making substantial reductions in the workforce. That is a typical statement from someone who thinks the only difference between the public and the private sector is that the public sector is treated more generously because the taxpayer will always pay.

You only have to look at the possible consequences of union action following the COM’s decision to freeze pay to realise that he’s wrong. Now I’m sure that we would all be very sympathetic if a load of bank workers decided to go out on strike because their pay was frozen. But they could man the picket lines in St Helier for weeks on end, and no one would know the difference and life in the Island would continue as usual.

But what happens if the airport firemen decide to strike, what would we feel about the teachers withdrawing their labour, and would we be happy if operations were delayed because nurses were working to rule?
Yes the bank workers are the ones creating the wealth, but there’s no point in having wealth if that doesn’t bring you good hospitals, schools and security.

So I wish that people like the former chairman of the Chamber of Commerce would stop making it sound as though a professional, well-paid and motivated public sector was some kind of optional extra.

On the other hand I have to acknowledge he’s right in supporting a public sector pay freeze, and I bet that many public sector workers would feel exactly the same way had the process not been botched by the Council of Ministers.

To hear a union leader complain that he has had only one meeting with the States Employment Board in the three months since this all blew up, shows that the employer has been less than sensitive to how their employees feel.

We all know what happened. The Council of Ministers were faced with a financial crisis and something had to be done, and not only that, it had to be seen to be done. So the only measure they could take (other than putting teachers, nurses and policemen out of work), was to freeze pay. So far, so good. But don’t you then talk to the staff about it? Do you not bring them into your confidence, or do you play the heavy-handed employer?

You can understand why the COM didn’t approach some of the union leaders, because the outcome would be pretty predictable. But the outcome is even worse if you don’t consult, and it would seem that this is why normally moderate public sector workers are pretty upset. Whether this damage to industrial relations persists once the crisis is over is anyone’s guess.

It’s also easy to understand the argument that because the private sector is suffering during the crisis and jobs are being lost, that the public sector has to make sacrifices too. That’s perfectly reasonable. The problem is that this argument is being hijacked by those who argue that government is too big in any case and needs to be pruned drastically. Perhaps even the Treasury Minister falls into that category.

It’s painfully obvious that government shouldn’t be involved in anything that the private sector can do more efficiently (which is not just to make a profit, but to supply a vital service). It’s also obvious that where it can be proved that public services are being delivered inefficiently, that improvements need to be made. In Jersey, neither of these problems has been proved, whatever some members of the Chamber of Commerce might believe.

Some might even think it ironic that the States pay freeze will release resources so that the States can spend more money in order to save private sector jobs, some of which would not survive in normal market conditions. Let’s hope the COM get the balance right.

That brings me to my second favourite person, the chairman of the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, who according to the JEP says that ‘the States should have nothing to do with running public businesses because they make a mess of it’.

The airport, the harbour and even Jersey Enterprise should be taken out of government control, she said, because they would then be run more efficiently.

Well if that’s the case, why not sell off the schools, the hospitals and even the police service? Why should only the so-called business activities of the States (if indeed that’s all they are supposed to be) benefit from good private sector management? Is she saying that it’s OK for a relatively inexperienced backbencher to be thrust almost overnight into being in charge of a department with a budget of close to £200m, but we shouldn’t let that minister get anywhere near the harbour or the airport?

But the chairman is a staunch member of the cut States spending/make things more efficient party, so I’m sure she would conclude that if the private sector can run an airport they can run a hospital.

The problem of course is that she is as confused as the former chairman of the Chamber of Commerce about what the public and private sectors do and what distinguishes them.

It’s undoubtedly true that the airport could make more money in the hands of a private operator, and if profit is all that we want from the airport then go ahead and sell it.

But life isn’t as simple as that, unfortunately. The chairman of the scrutiny panel even suggested that Jersey Electricity could be a model for some of the States other ‘commercial’ activities.

It’s true that the JEC is a very efficient company where the States has retained part ownership in order to look after the public interest. But the recent argument over JEC price increases would seem to indicate that the current model might not be providing that element of public interest.

So it’s all very complicated.
I’m sure my ‘friends’ are not taking too simplistic an approach to these problems, but the evidence does rather point in the other direction.
Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine