APPENDIX K
Letter of 17 December 1998 from
the Convenor,
Civil Service Starting Salaries Review Steering Group
to the representatives of the respective councils/unions
17 December 1998
Dr Leung Chi-chiu
Staff Side Chairman
of the Senior Civil Service Council
Dear Dr Leung,
Review of Civil Service Starting Salaries
I would like to convey to you
the response of the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of
Service to salient points made by you and other Staff Side representatives at the informal
meetings on 26 November 1998 and 9 December 1998 and your letter addressed to the
Commission Chairman, Sir Sidney Gordon, dated 7 December 1998.
The Commission's views as
stated in the following paragraphs have been arrived at after detailed consideration of
the representations made -
| (a) |
Timing of the review |
|
|
The timing of the review is a matter for the Administration to decide.
The Secretary for the Civil Service (SCS) has re-affirmed to the Commission in writing
that the timing of the review would not be changed. The Commission will therefore proceed
with the review in 1999 as originally scheduled. |
|
| (b) |
Scope of the review |
|
|
As with timing, the SCS has also re-affirmed that the scope of the
review would remain unchanged and the Commission is to undertake a review covering civil
service starting salaries only. Whether the review would lead on to reviews of other
aspects concerning civil service salaries would be a matter for the Administration to
decide. We understand that the Administration keeps an open mind and will consider the
need for further reviews in the light of the findings of the current review and the
Commission's recommendations on how to take these forward. |
|
| (c) |
Timeframe of the review and staff consultation |
|
|
The Administration has asked the Commission to submit its
recommendations to the Chief Executive by June 1999. The Commission's timetable for the
review, drawn up having regard to this deadline and the necessary work involved at each
stage, requires the Steering Group to complete an exchange of views with all interested
parties on the survey methodology and to consolidate the survey field in December in order
that the survey could start in early January 1999. Because of the complexity of the survey
and the need to cover a target of 120 companies to make the sample representative, a
minimum of four months (from January to early May 1999) will be required for the survey.
Therefore, it is not possible to delay the commencement of the survey given that the
deadline for the completion of the review remains June 1999. As regards staff
consultation, the Commission's view is that since the current review is focussed on
benchmarks of individual education qualification groups, rather than on the pay structure
of all civil service grades and ranks, consultation with the Staff Sides of the four
central consultative councils and with the other three major civil service unions (which
altogether represent well over 70% of the civil service), through the Steering Group,
should be sufficient and appropriate. |
|
| (d) |
Survey methodology |
|
|
The Educational Qualification Method (EQM) proposed by the Commission
for the current review was used in 1979 and again in the 1989 review. For the past twenty
years, the civil service pay structure was developed on this basis. It has been working
well and has been accepted by both the civil service and the public. There is no reason to
change the methodology in the forthcoming survey. |
|
The Commission, of course, has considered other methods such as the
core grade and the grade-by-grade factor analysis methods. As the objective is to make
broad, rather than precise, comparisons of starting salaries between the private sector
and the civil service, the Commission is of the view that the EQM far outweighs the other
two methods. |
|
Having regard to the fact that the EQM is a well-established and
relatively simple method and the tight time-table, the time given for the Staff Sides to
comment on the survey methodology is not therefore unreasonable. |
|
| (e) |
Survey period |
|
|
It is a common practice to use 12 months as the survey period to ensure
that the most up-to-date pay data are captured. Extending the survey period to, say, two
to three years, to capture historical data would be difficult to justify and undermine the
credibility of the survey findings. It is also important to bear in mind the practical
constraints that many companies may have difficulty in providing historical data and may,
on this account, opt out of the survey. The Commission has raised this issue with the
Administration which has confirmed that it is the most up-to-date position and not the
past trend that the Commission should be concerned with. |
|
You may also wish to note that the Administration has asked the
Commission to advise on ways and means to ensure the continuing broad comparability
between civil service entry pay and pay in the private sector for similar qualifications. |
|
| (f) |
Survey questionnaire |
|
|
The Commission's view is that as a tool to facilitate the survey, the
questionnaire is designed merely to capture data and nothing else. Unlike the pay trend
survey which is commissioned by the Pay Trend Survey Committee, its members consisting
mainly of the Staff Sides who are therefore rightfully entitled to a part in designing the
questionnaire, the same analogy cannot be extended to the starting salaries review which
is a task to be undertaken by the Commission independently. For the sake of the
credibility of the survey, the Commission not only has to conduct it independently but be
seen to be doing just that. Therefore, neither the Administration, interested private
sector bodies nor the companies involved in the survey have been consulted on the design
of the survey questionnaire. It would also be inappropriate to consult the Staff Sides. |
|
| (g) |
List of survey companies |
|
|
The Commission has no objection to release the list of survey companies
for information but considers that this should be done only after the list has been
finalised and the participation of the companies concerned confirmed. |
|
| (h) |
Consultation on survey findings and the Commission's
recommendations |
|
|
The Commission's view on this is that as the review was commissioned by
the Administration, it is only right and proper that the Commission should submit the
findings and recommendations to the Administration. The well-established practice over the
years is that before the Administration introduces any changes based on the Commission's
recommendations, the Administration would undertake to consult the Staff Sides of the four
central consultative councils first. The Commission has been assured by the Administration
that the same consultation procedure will be followed in the current review. You can also
be assured that the Commission has no pre-conceived views on the survey findings and will
consider all relevant factors when making recommendations to the Administration. |
|
I trust the above information will help to clarify your concerns about
the review. The Commission appreciates the opportunity of meeting with the Staff Sides. If
you or your representatives have further views on the review, including matters which you
think we should make reference to in analyzing the findings of the survey and making
recommendations to the Administration, please let the Commission Secretariat know. |
|
Yours sincerely,
(Nicholas S C Chiu)
Convenor
Civil Service Starting Salaries Review
Steering Group |
| c.c. |
Mr W K Lam, JP
Secretary for the Civil Service
Sir Sidney Gordon, JP
Chairman, Standing Commission
Mr Paul Tang, JP
Secretary General, Standing Commission |
(Similar letter to :
Mr Chan Cheung-yee
Staff-Side Chairman of the Model Scale 1 Staff Consultative Council
Mr Leung Yiu-wah
Staff-Side Chairman of the Disciplined Services Consultative Council
Mr Lung Hung-cheuk, Larry
Principal Staff-Side Spokesman of the Police Force Council)
17 December 1998
Mr Cheung Kwok-bui
Chairman
Hong Kong Civil Servants General Union
Dear Mr Cheung,
Review of Civil Service Starting Salaries
I would like to convey to you
the response of the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of
Service to the salient points made by you and other union representatives at your meeting
with the Commission's Steering Group on 27 November 1998.
The Commission's views as
stated in the following paragraphs have been arrived at after detailed consideration of
the points made -
| (a) |
Timing of the review |
|
|
The timing of the review is a matter for the Administration to decide.
The Secretary for the Civil Service (SCS) has re-affirmed to the Commission in writing
that the timing of the review would not be changed. The Commission will therefore proceed
with the review in 1999 as originally scheduled. |
|
| (b) |
Scope of the review |
|
|
As with timing, the SCS has also re-affirmed that the scope of the
review would remain unchanged and the Commission is to undertake a review covering civil
service starting salaries only. However, we understand that the Administration keeps an
open mind and will consider the need for further reviews in the light of the findings of
the current review and the Commission's recommendations on how to take these forward. |
|
| (c) |
Timeframe of the review and staff consultation |
|
|
The Administration has asked the Commission to submit its
recommendations to the Chief Executive by June 1999. The Commission's timetable for the
review, drawn up having regard to this deadline and the necessary work involved at each
stage, requires the Steering Group to complete an exchange of views with all interested
parties on the survey methodology and to consolidate the survey field in December in order
that the survey could start in early January 1999. Because of the complexity of the survey
and the need to cover a target of 120 companies to make the sample representative, a
minimum of four months (from January to early May 1999) will be required for the survey.
Therefore, it is not possible to delay the commencement of the survey as the deadline for
the completion of the review remains June 1999. As regards staff consultation, the
Commission's view is that since the current review is focussed on benchmarks of individual
education qualification groups, rather than on the pay structure of all civil service
grades and ranks, consultation with the Staff Sides of the four central consultative
councils and with the other three major civil service unions (which altogether represent
well over 70% of the civil service), through the Steering Group, should be sufficient and
appropriate. |
|
| (d) |
Survey methodology |
|
|
The Educational Qualification Method (EQM) proposed by the Commission
for the current review was used in 1979 and again in the 1989 review. For the past twenty
years, the civil service pay structure was developed on this basis. It has been working
well and has been accepted by both the civil service and the public. There is no reason to
change the methodology in the forthcoming survey. |
|
The Commission, of course, has considered other methods such as the
core grade and the grade-by-grade factor analysis methods. As the objective is to make
broad, rather than precise, comparisons of starting salaries between the private sector
and the civil service, the Commission is of the view that the EQM far outweighs the other
two methods. |
|
Having regard to the fact that the EQM is a well-established and
relatively simple method and the tight time-table, the time given for you and other union
representatives to comment on the methodology is not therefore unreasonable. |
|
| (e) |
Survey period |
|
|
It is a common practice to use 12 months as the survey period to ensure
that the most up-to-date pay data are captured. Extending the survey period to, say, two
to three years, to capture historical data would be difficult to justify and undermine the
credibility of the survey findings. It is also important to bear in mind the practical
constraints that many companies may have difficulty in providing historical data and may,
on this account, opt out of the survey. The Commission has raised this issue with the
Administration which has confirmed that it is the most up-to-date position and not the
past trend that the Commission should be concerned with. |
|
| (f) |
List of survey companies |
|
|
The Commission has no objection to release the list of survey companies
for information but considers that this should be done only after the list has been
finalised and the participation of companies concerned confirmed. |
|
| (g) |
Consultation on survey findings and the Commission's
recommendations |
|
|
The Commission's view on this is that as the review was commissioned by
the Administration, it is only right and proper that the Commission should submit the
findings and recommendations to the Administration. The well-established practice over the
years is that before the Administration introduces any changes based on the Commission's
recommendations, the Administration would undertake to consult the Staff Sides of the four
central consultative councils first. The Commission has been assured by the Administration
that the same consultation procedure will be followed in the current review. You can also
be assured that the Commission has no pre-conceived views on the survey findings and will
take into account all relevant factors when making recommendations to the Administration. |
|
I trust the above information will help to clarify your concerns about
the review. The Steering Group appreciates the opportunity of meeting you. If you or your
representatives have further views on the review, please let the Commission Secretariat
know. |
|
Yours sincerely,
(Nicholas S C Chiu)
Convenor
Civil Service Starting Salaries Review
Steering Group |
| c.c. |
Mr W K Lam, JP
Secretary for the Civil Service
Sir Sidney Gordon, JP
Chairman, Standing Commission
Mr Paul Tang, JP
Secretary General, Standing Commission |
(Similar letter to :
Mr Chan Che-kwong
Chairman of the Government Employees Association
Mr Leung Chau-ting
Chairman of the Federation of Civil Service Unions)