FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The action carried out by the Albanian government is clearly immoral, unethical and not in respect of the separation of powers.
When Mrs. Hillary Clinton was appointed the 67th Secretary of the State Department in the period 2009-2013, the US Congress reduced her salary compared to her predecessor Rice. This was the mechanism that enabled her appointment to this post.
The reason was related to the fact that in Congress Ms. Clinton had voted in favor of the salary increase in the administration. This is because the US Constitution contains clauses on the compensation of administration officials.
One of them is the clause according to which no senator or member of Congress shall be appointed to administrative positions that have been created or the compensation for these positions has been increased during the period of exercise of office as elected. The purpose of this clause is to preserve the separation of powers and prevent the influence of the executive power over the legislative power and vice versa.
This example from the American constitution and the case of Mrs. Clinton give us a very clear reference system to judge the most recent decision to raise wages proposed by the government, approved by a comprehensive vote in the Assembly and sealed with the decree of the President of the Republic.
And the conclusion that emerges from this comparison is not good at all. The action carried out by the Albanian government is clearly immoral, unethical and not in respect of the separation of powers.
What distinguished this year's salary increase decision, which is often mistakenly referred to as salary reform, is the trajectory it followed in the periods before and after the local government elections.
A campaign personally undertaken by the prime minister before the elections, initially anathemaing black wages in the private sector and calling on the workshop to denounce the owners; then committing to increasing the salary of the mass services of budget employees, namely doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, in order to curb emigration. In short, the prime minister was lamenting the problem and was giving a solution regarding the salaries of the "junior".
The promised pay rise failed to pass before the election date due (according to a half-joke, half-true story) to obstruction by an MP. However, the salary increase was not forgotten, but after the elections, the target of the "salary reform" changed.
The increase in real salaries was almost zero or very low for the "little" budget officers and almost doubled for the high ranks of the administration, including the heads of state, namely the president, prime minister, speaker of the assembly, deputy, minister, etc., of this rank. . This trajectory makes the decision immoral, because it deviated from the main goal: treating wage earners with a more dignified wage to fight informality and emigration. The growth was even such that it only compensated the inflation or slightly above it.
The marked increase in salaries for the upper levels of the administration, despite the hierarchy argument that was strongly emphasized by the prime minister and by the discussions in the parliamentary session, did not ensure the separation of executive and legislative or presidential power, on the contrary, it emphasized the influence of one over the other, because neither power did not challenge the other, not even the opposition had the strength to remove more moral, even in the conditions when the numbers to approve the deformed salary increase were secured.
As for the hierarchical ranking of salaries, again the USA gives us a fairly good reference example. If you discuss salary issues in the offices of the central bank of the USA, they proudly say that the Governor of that bank receives a salary that is lower than certain levels of his subordinates, employees of the central bank. Because what is of value to this official is the honor offered to serve in the office of governor. So the argument used that, for example, a prosecutor is paid more than a president is not exhaustive.
The discussion is not related to the fact why wages are increasing. It is clear that the increase and correction of wages in both sectors, state and private, are necessary and should be carried out as appropriate in reflection of the costs of living, the change in productivity, the ratio of demand / supply for the labor force, etc.
And this also applies to the high levels of the state administration. But the model used this time in raising wages, especially after a period of tax burden, including VAT applied to higher prices, has produced a distortion even in the regional aspect where it seems as if the state leader whose citizens are rewarded have less income per capita.
Lini një Përgjigje