Bermuda Public Service Association president Nigel Pemberton's decision to adopt a more conciliatory tone on performance-related pay for the civil service is probably wise.

When he was elected president, Mr. Pemberton stated quite firmly he was against the idea. In yesterday's newspaper, his stance had changed, but it should still be clear that the union will look at the idea - which Government wishes to introduce this year - very carefully.

That is quite correct, although the BPSA will have to be quite careful about how it frames its arguments against the idea.

The crux of the problem is that performance based-pay, in which individual employees receive pay increases based on merit and how well they perform a particular series of tasks is a system of pay and benefits which in many ways is the polar opposite of collective bargaining, especially in the public service.

Collective bargaining says: “If you perform these set tasks satisfactorially, you will receive this amount of money and these benefits based on your job description and position.”

Performance-based pay says: “If you perform these set tasks well, and go above and beyond your job description and position, and if you show initiative and extra effort, you will receive more money than someone in your job description and position would normally get.”

Within the civil service, collective bargaining can encourage mediocrity. What incentive is there for someone to work hard if the person at the next desk is doing the bare minimum and being equally rewarded? Performance-based pay gives the first person the incentive. For most people in the private sector, the mystery will be over why this is a matter for debate at all. Indeed, that is how life in the private sector is supposed to work, even if its not always the case in practice. Those people who work hard, who save or make money for their employers, who put in extra hours and respond well in emergencies are the same people who should get raises and promotions. The people who meet the minimum standards their jobs require tend to stay where they are.

The public service is in some ways, a different animal. And the wide variety of different jobs and professions in the public service makes it difficult to apply across the board rewards. A zealous Customs officer who efficiently collects duty performs a very different role from a social worker who saves a young person from taking the wrong track. Deciding how they should be rewarded is complex.

That is why performance-based pay needs to go hand in hand with performance appraisals and careful monitoring. As Mr. Pemberton says, the risk of cliques forming and underhanded behaviour taking place is a risk. But that does not mean it should not be done. Giving civil servants the incentive to go above and beyond the call of duty should result in a more energetic and efficient public service. And the incentives should also do something to raise the overall calibre of civil service and should aid in recruiting and retention.

Government is right to pursue this idea, which could revolutionise the culture of the Civil Service for the better. But they need to ensure in doing so that the process is above board, honest and devoid of favouritism. Otherwise the Civil Service will not believe in it and that will assure its failure.