It was with some surprise when I read James Watler, President of the Cayman Islands Civil Service, press release regarding the Throne Speech given by Acting Governor Franz Manderson.

Manderson had announced as part of austerity measures being implemented to shore up the national budget, public sector workers in the Cayman Islands are once again being asked to forego 3.2 per cent of their salaries, which represents their cost of living allowance (COLA).

This is the second time in the past three years civil servants have lost the COLA. The rollback came in favour of retaining existing provisions relating to civil servants’ CINICO health insurance coverage, pensions and current provisions for the housing allowance for existing police officers, including contract renewal.

In addition to 3.2 per cent pay cut, civil servants will not be looking forward to a new post-retirement employment policy whereby those over 60 and in receipt of a public sector pension will have to accept a pay scale of point one, if they get a new or renewed employment contract.

Newly employed RCIPS officers will have an adjusted housing allowance of $200 per month, going back to pre-Hurricane Ivan levels. Civil servants recruited from overseas will no long receive a relocation allowance. However, they may receive the equivalent of one month’s salary as a loan, repayable within six months.

Mr. Manderson said, “While I regret that these austerity measures are required, I am confident that among the available options for reducing personnel costs, these measures will prove the least disruptive to members within our civil service family and the community we serve.”

In Mr. Watler’s reply he said, “It is…with a heavy heart that we acknowledge that a rollback of the 3.2 per cent COLA has been deemed the most equitable and productive option for trimming direct civil service expenditure in the 2012/13 financial year. CICSA has always expressed concern for the plight of our lowest wage earners who are often disproportionally impacted by expenditure cutting measures. It is with this in mind that we view the rollback of COLA as being potentially less painful for this particularly vulnerable group of civil servants to bear than other, flat-fee, options that were suggested.

“We have also advocated that if the rollback of the 3.2 per cent COLA is accepted as policy, that the savings be earmarked towards the public service pension liability. We know that this is a major national debt being borne by all of us as citizens. Therefore we take consolation in knowing that our sacrifice will go towards ensuring hard working civil servants can receive a pension and that we are directly contributing towards relief of a major source of national debt.”

I had expected an almost revolt from the civil servants leader at the rollback and it is a pleasant change to find commonsense and agreement coming to the surface in these trying times.

Thank you Mr. Watler. Can this set an example for the rest of the country?