Wapco's geographic differentials (combined).pdf

Media

Part of Philippine Educator

extracted text: WAPCO’S "Geographic Differentials” By Pedro N. Manoos Editor’s Note: Pedro X. Manoos, former Analyst in the Wage and Posidon Classification Office is at present Budget Ofiiccr of Hie Jvstitmc of Xational Language. He is the au thor of tiro precious articles about the WAPCO Plan which were published in the Philippine Educator’" He sent the present article as a sequel to the previous ones and in answer io the many letters of inquiry he has been re ceiving f'-oir teachers in the field. He hopes it will clarify the questions now in t!i( minds of thousands of teachers in the produces enucci iiing their salary adjiistmcnts under the' WAPCO Plans. O EORGANIZATION Plan No. 2-A, otherwise known as the WAPCO Pay Plan provides for a rate of pay for Manila and surrounding provinces, which is different from that in the rest of the country. This “geographic differential” as it is called, places the salary of a position in the Manila area (which includes the provinces of Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Pampanga and Bulacan and the chartered cities of Ma nila, Pasay, Quezon, Cavite, Tagaytay and San Pa blo) four ranges higher than those for similar posi tions in the provincial area which comprises the rest of the provinces and chartered cities. It is, therefore, not surprising that when the va rious bureaus and offices began doling out adjustment salaries of their personnel, the provincial employees, notably the teachers, voice their protests against the “injustice” done to them. The following table shows the various classes and pay ranges for teachers in the different levels as well as a comparison of the Manila and provincial rates. Minimum Minimum Minimum ïange Salary Range Salary Range Salary 23 — 1800 29 — 2424 35 — 3264 P — 1476 P — 1980 P — 2676 24 — 1884 30 — 2544 36 — 3432 P — 1548 P — 2088 P — 2808 25 — 1980 31 — 2676 37 — 3612 P — 1632 P — 2196 P — 2952 26 — 2088 32 — 2808 38 — 3792 P — 1884 P — 2304 P — 3108 27 — 2196 33 — 2952 39 — 3984 P — 1800 P — 2424 P — 3264 28 — 2304 34 — 3108 40 — 4188 P — 1884 P — 2544 P — 3432 Note: The provincial rate denoted by “P” is four ranges lower than the corresponding Manila rate. It may readily be seen in the table that a teacher stationed in the Manila area, whose position is in level 1, range 27, gets a minimum salary of P2196 per annum. (See range 27). If this same teacher were assigned anywhere in the provincial area, say Marinduque or Samar, she would get only P1800. (See range 27-P). The teacher in either case, however, will not act ually receive the full minimum salary. If in the first Ranges of Pay Classes Level 1 Less than ETC or Equivalent 24 ETC or Equivalent 27 BSE or Equivalent 30 BSE+ 20 or Equivalent 31 MA or Equivalent 32 Elementary Classroom Teacher Secondai Classroom Teacher ) ) Elementary School Head Teacher ) Secondary School Head Teacher I ) 2 26 29 32 33 34 Guidance Coordinator ) Sec. School Head Teacher II ) Teaching Positions (Instructors) ) 9 31 34 35 36 ' 2-year Post Secondary School ) Sec. School Head Teacher HI Arts & Trades Instruction Super ) ) 4 33 36 37 38 visor I ) Sec. School Head Teacher IV ) Arts & Trade Instruction Super- ) 5 38 39 40 pervisor II ) :: Pedro N. Manoos—“WAPCO’S Classification Plan”; Phil ippine Educator, November 1956, Vol XI, p. 21; ‘The Teacher Under the WAPCO Plans”, 1957, Vol. XI, p. 34. Philippine Educator, January PAGE 58 THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATOR case she were receiving, say P1680 before the imple mentation of the WAPCO Plan, her actual salary as adjusted would be P1734.80 (or P1735 in round fig ures). This is found by subtracting the current salary (P1680) from the WAPCO minimum (P2196) and then adding 30% of the difference, which is P154.80, to the current salary. In the second case the teacher would receive P1716 which may be arrived at in the same way. That is, P1800 (WAPCO minimum) less P1680 (current salary) equals P120, 30% of which is P36. This added to P1680 gives P1716. Following the above procedure, any teacher (or any employee whose position has a range equal to one of those given in the table) who is entitled to adjust ment in salary equal to or more than the WAPCO check up his adjusted pay.* An employee already re ceiving a salary equal to or more than the WAPCO minimum for his position, is not entitled to any ad justment this year unless she raises her position level and/or salary range. Going back to the question of geographic differen tial, many believe that its application in the WAPCO Pay Plan is rather impractical and arbitrary. Grant ing that the cost of living in Manila, Quezon City and Pasay is higher than that in other cities and in the provinces outside the Manila area, no amount of ex planation can convince the teacher in a barrio school in southern Tarlac that he spends less for his food, clothing, and lodging than does another barrio teach er just across the border in northern Pampanga, and is therefore entitled to a lessei’ salary. A much less understandable situation is that of a head teacher in a school in Nueva Ecija who under the WAPCO Plan receives the provincial rate of P1980 (range 29-P), while an ordinary classroom teacher in a neighboring school in Bulacan would get the Manila rate of P2196 (range 27). There are many more similar situations which tend to prove the im practicability of applying the geographic differential in a small and economically homogeneous country like ours. In its annual report dated December 29, 1954 the WAPCO justifies the application of the geographic differential in .its pay plan by stating that data col lected from private employers in various places in the country show significant differences between the general level of salaries prevailing in Manila and that found in other areas. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that these salary differences reflect differences in the cost of living between Manila and the provinces, the report says. Computations in the previous articles of the author as mentioned above we.’-e based on the Manila rates. In the absence of definite figures or data on the cost of living in the provinces and in Manila, which the WAPCO admits are not available, many think that the geographic differential in the WAPCO pay plan is rather onerous and should, therefore, be eliminated. Speaking of cost of living standards, it may be said that house rentals are generally higher in Manila and its suburbs than in the provinces. This, how ever, is compensated by the cheaper prices of certain foodstuffs, clothing and construction materials in the city. In addition to this, the opportunity of getting or continuing one’s education is greater for those who are employed in Manila or the neighboring provinces. Public School teachers in Manila have the special privilege of working for lesser number of hours than those in the provinces because they hold classes either in the morning or in the afternoon, only. This places teachers in the Manila area at a greater advantage since they can pursue higher studies during their off sessions, thus raising their educational qualifications and consequently their salary ranges. A study con ducted by this writer revealed that under the WAPCO plan the average salaries of public school teachers in the divisions of Manila, Cavite, Pampanga, Rizal, Bu lacan and Laguna, all in the Manila area, are the highest among those in the various school divisions. This may be attributed to the higher educational qua lifications of teachers in these provinces on account of the proximity of these places to the colleges and universities in Manila. This fact, alone, should be sufficient argument for the non-application of the geographical differential to the teaching positions. The application of geographic differential to prov incial positions runs counter to the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” upon which the WAPCO Classifi cation plan is said to be based. It defeats the very purpose of position classification, which is the stand ardization of salaries, for it adopts different standards of pay for the Manila and the provincial areas. What ever explanations the WAPCO experts may give, the employees affected by the geographic differential will always question why those performing exactly the same duties, just because they happened to be sta tioned in different cities or provinces should be given different salary rates. This principle of geographic differential may work out well in the United States, but it is doubtful if it could be justifiably applied in the Philippines. This is one thing the American consultants of the WAPCO forgot to consider when they made their recommen dations. Our own Filipino classification experts should look into this matter deeply with a view to eliminating this onerous provisions of the WAPCO plan. Congress, likewise, should respond to public opinion regarding the Plan so that its apparent inequi ties and injustices could be corrected. FEBRUARY, 1958 PAGE 59
Date: 1958
Rights