The truth behind the PSA wage dispute

For months, public officers across the country have been watching closely as the long-delayed wage negotiations finally shifted. After years of stagnation, frustration and political back-and-forth, this week’s meeting between the PSA and the Acting Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) produced the first decisive movement: a formal 10 per cent offer was finally placed on the table.

For thousands of workers, it is the first tangible sign that their financial realities are being acknowledged. But even as the offer arrives, two truths remain unchanged. The offer does not automatically equal payment, and the Government has not clearly explained how and when the increase will be funded and paid out. The Minister of Finance himself has admitted that he cannot say when backpay will be issued, nor how the ten per cent will be configured. That uncertainty is not a minor detail—it is the heart of the issue. Because an offer without funding is not a solution. It is an intention.

To understand the significance of this moment, we must return to how wage increases actually work in the public service. A political leader can make a promise. A minister can express support. A union can demand action. But none of these create a legal or financial obligation. In Trinidad and Tobago, only the CPO—acting on instructions from the Ministry of Finance—can issue a formal salary proposal. Those instructions, known as fiscal parameters, set the limits of what the State can afford and the range within which the CPO may negotiate. Without them, the CPO has no mandate. With them, negotiations can begin.

Friday’s offer confirms that the Ministry of Finance has now provided that mandate. What it does not confirm is whether the Government has the money to pay for it. And that is where the Budget speaks louder than any political statement.

The 2026 national budget contained no explicit allocation for a 10 per cent wage increase or backpay. There was no dedicated vote for arrears or salary adjustments. The only item related to compensation was funding for job evaluation and classification exercises. In practical terms, this means the State entered negotiations without setting aside the money required to honour any agreement. This is not just a political critique; it is a matter of public finance law.

According to the Ministry of Finance’s own procedures, any funding that is not included in the national budget must go back to Parliament through a Supplementary Appropriation. In simpler terms, if the money was not budgeted, the Minister of Finance must present an additional mini-budget seeking approval to spend it. Even more fundamentally, our public financial management laws state that no money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund without Parliamentary approval.

This means a wage increase can be negotiated—and it can even be agreed—but it cannot be paid unless Parliament authorises the funds. Without that authorisation, the Government cannot legally spend a single dollar on the increase or the backpay.

Given the time required for Cabinet approval, Parliamentary debate and the passage of a Supplementary Appropriation, payment before Christmas is highly unlikely. Supplementary Appropriations typically occur mid-year or toward the end of the financial cycle, not mere weeks after the budget is passed. And the Minister of Finance’s own statements confirm this reality. While he insists that Government is committed to honouring the offer, he has repeatedly declined to predict when backpay will be issued or how the ten per cent will be structured. His caution tells its own story: the offer exists, but the legal and financial machinery to pay it does not.

This is what makes the PSA’s response to the offer so striking. After receiving the proposal, the union immediately declared it a “promise made and a promise delivered” and publicly expressed confidence that workers would receive their backpay before Christmas. But while the union celebrates, the Minister of Finance has made it clear he cannot guarantee the timing or outcome of the negotiations. The PSA is telling workers that the Government would never make an offer it cannot keep. The Minister is warning the country that he cannot predict when payments will actually happen. And the law states that payments cannot happen at all until Parliament approves the funding.

Workers deserve the truth about that gap.

There is also a deeper issue that cannot be ignored: the political alignment of some labour leaders. When a union publicly supports a political party and then echoes that party’s talking points, workers are placed in a vulnerable position. Their livelihoods become entangled with political fortunes, and when promises collide with fiscal reality, it is the workers who suffer the consequences. A union’s first duty must always be to its members—not to any political narrative.

And while public officers wait, a painful contrast continues to fuel frustration. Members of Parliament have already received their own salary adjustments through the independent Salaries Review Commission. Their increases were funded, approved and paid. Meanwhile, the people who keep the State running—the same people who process those payrolls and maintain the systems—are told once again to be patient.

Public officers are not unreasonable. They understand that the State must manage its finances carefully. They understand that negotiations are complex. But they also cannot be fooled. The ten per cent offer is progress, but it is not payment. Until the Government identifies the funding, brings a Supplementary Appropriation to Parliament and establishes a timeline for implementation, the offer remains an unfulfilled obligation.

Workers deserve better than uncertainty. They deserve leadership that is transparent, unions that are honest, and a Government that funds what it promises. Only then can trust be rebuilt and fairness delivered to the people who keep this country running.

Mickela Panday is the Political Leader of the Patriotic Front and an attorney-at-law. She can be reached at [email protected]