The President of the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT), Eric Angel Carbonu, has expressed disappointment with the 10% salary increase for public sector workers, stating it doesn’t meet expectations.
Initially, labour unions, including NAGRAT, had pushed for a 25% salary hike, highlighting the need for a more substantial increase to address the challenges faced by public sector workers.
He recognized that labour unions must be pragmatic and temper their expectations, making significant concessions in light of the current economic climate.
This nuanced approach acknowledges the need for unions to balance their demands with the economic realities, ensuring that their requests are reasonable and achievable.
“It is a huge sacrifice labour is making this year, and it will influence negotiations next year. We were expecting a minimum of 25%, but with the state of the economy, even if the government gives us 60%, it cannot address our challenges because prices have gone up.
“The government is aware that meeting our initial demands would have severe repercussions, potentially triggering an economic shutdown or reigniting the economic crisis we faced recently,” he cautioned.
President John Mahama personally held direct talks with union leaders on Thursday, seeking to win them over to the proposed 10% salary increase, even though they had initially pushed for a 25% hike.
This latest increase represents the second salary boost within a span of less than a year, building on the 23% raise implemented in 2024 to alleviate the financial strain on workers.
As some people are of the view that the increment is excessive and could worsen inflation, Mr. Carbonu believes it is fair under the current circumstances.
In an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen, he stressed that even if the government had agreed to a 60% increment, it still wouldn’t have been enough due to the rising cost of living.
“While 10% may not be sufficient, our consideration was influenced by the government’s appeal, the points raised by labour, the ultimate objective, and the potential impact on the economy.”
“The President’s personal involvement in the meeting was unusual, signaling the gravity of the economic situation.
Notably, he didn’t participate in the negotiations but rather made a heartfelt appeal, almost pleading with us to accept the 10% increment, warning that anything higher would have catastrophic consequences for the economy. He emphasized that his request wasn’t just an appeal, but a sincere plea, underscoring the severity of the crisis,” he explained.
