The PASYDY trade union will seek a meeting with the Minister of Finance, Makis Keravnos, in the coming days to discuss the problems arising from the new evaluation system for public servants.
There is turmoil in the public sector, both due to the low ratings included in the evaluations received by employees from evaluators, and violations of the legal framework.
Trade unions receive daily complaints from affected public servants, who claim to have received below-average ratings.
Indeed, the issue will be brought up for discussion in Parliament, as members of the Parliamentary Committee on Economic Affairs have decided to discuss it on their own initiative, following a proposal by the MP of DIKO, Chrysis Pantelides.
Members of Parliament have also become recipients of complaints, and during the discussion in Parliament, they will demand answers from the Executive Branch regarding its intentions to make changes.
Yesterday, Finance Minister Makis Keravnos stated to the Third Channel that they are closely monitoring developments with concern, as, as he said, a system with several issues and distortions has been agreed upon.
“Of course, distortions in the Public Service are very significant and start from recruitment, placement, and personnel development.”
Speaking to RIK, he mentioned that it is a complex problem, pointing out that a comprehensive evaluation will be conducted to make corrections in the Public Service.
“Studies are being conducted, the rationalization of the state payroll has been entrusted to the IMF because it seems that certain data have been entrenched over time, and the Public Service cannot meet them,” he added.
However, the majority of employees who received their evaluations were not satisfied, and some of them have already filed objections, while many others will follow suit to the Appeals Committee. As the affected parties claim, very few employees received scores of 9 and 10.
In Sunday’s edition, the General Secretary of PASYDY, Stratis Matthaiou, had denounced through “F” that the results of the evaluations communicated to them showed that the employees were not evaluated objectively and based on their performance but with the aim of overturning impressions from the previous evaluation system.
Essentially, he said, from the beginning, the intention of the evaluators was to give low ratings to avoid the blanket evaluation with the previous system, with which almost all employees were rated as excellent.
