Controversial pay rises
Romanias Parliament has passed pay rises for education and healthcare employees. However, the government challenged the law at the Constitutional Court.
Mihai Pelin, 08.11.2016, 13:45
Romanian MPs near to the end of their term in office, on Monday passed the law that raises salaries by 15% for education and healthcare employees as from January 1st 2017. The Law has stirred heated debates on the public scene. The PM Dacian Cioloş announced he would ask the Constitutional Court to give its verdict on the constitutionality of that law. According to Cioloş, the MPs failed to ask for the government’s opinion, as stipulated by law. Also they did not submit the draft law for public, transparent debate.
Furthermore, the principle of a two-chamber parliament was infringed. Upon the voting of the law, Labour Minister, Dragos Pislaru said that the government could allow an increase of 15 % on an average of salaries for healthcare employees and of 10% for education employees, both pay rises in installments. He has made a last call on Parliament to take responsibility. In his opinion, the pay rises cannot be covered by the budget and are an inequity since high salaries will increase more and lower salaries less.
Dragos Pislaru: “Actually, there are things concealed in the charts. The amendments laid down in the committee’s report will entail polarization between newcomers in the system and those who will now benefit from the highest pay rises. Most of the increases will go to employees who already have higher salaries.”
The leader of the Social-Democratic Party, Liviu Dragnea, believes that there is enough money for those pay rises, which will amount to 1.8-1.9 billion lei and that the budget deficit will not exceed the allowed percentage.
Liviu Dragnea: “At the moment, the budget deficit is 0.4-0.45% of the GDP and so, it cannot go up to 2.8-2.9%. The economic growth for 2017 predicted by the Forecast Committee will ultimately provide the general consolidated budget of roughly 14 billion lei with additional revenues. Folks, don’t keep unused money and people with very low wages.”
The Liberal camp refused to participate in the debates and the final vote on the law because it believes that its provisions are not covered by the budget and the law was passed for electoral purposes. The National Liberal Party also claimed that the law was passed with the lack of quorum.
In pundits’ view, those cases of so-called “electoral alms” given in the run up to the parliamentary elections due in December will leave their mark on economic growth and will trigger a drop in investments.
