I have already been taxed with one in particular: that I support stopping the provision of housing for outside hires.
I do not endorse, or support everything on that list.
Some of the items need further refinement, are too broad, and a few I wasn’t even sure what was intended.
But I thought it is important to get the list out to stimulate discussion, to show everyone that floating a bond wasn’t the only way to cure the problem of the government’s ever-increasing debt to the Retirement Fund.
In terms of housing for outside hires–which would appear to have become particularly critical in setting salaries for doctors at our Commonwealth Health Center–several factors present themselves.
In many ways, it irks me that anyone thinks off-island hires should receive the same salary working in the CNMI as they do on the mainland.
Outside hires get a huge break when they come to the CNMI: they do not have to pay income tax–and what they pay largely gets rebated.
And living in the CNMI–with the CNMI having basically one season–i.e., summer–most outside hires don’t have to deal with the costs of heating homes year-round or with the need for different sets of clothing for each of the four seasons of the year, don’t have to deal with the costs commuting long distances to shop, go to work, take kids to school, etc.. — or the costs of taking summer or winter beach-combing, scuba, fishing, sailing, or canoeing vacations.
These are all significant mainland costs that outside hires save by coming to work in the CNMI.
Of course, if those hires insist on eating only imported mainland foods rather than learning to cook and eat local foods, if they insist on air conditioning 24/7 — especially with the ultra-high cost of power on Saipan–those cost savings might not be so high. Nonetheless, they should be calculated when setting the remuneration levels for outside hires in the CNMI.
However, I would submit that housing is a different matter.
Outside hires cannot buy homes.
They are not entitled to homesteads. Having to pay rent is a drain on their income that offers no opportunity for investment, or savings, or security as they would have on the mainland.
They do not have family, friends or relatives, with whom to live, or whose places are available to them, often at “bargain” rates–or for free.
It is an additional cost to working in the CNMI that they did not have on the mainland.
It is, therefore, only just and logical that this cost should also be calculated when setting the remuneration offered to outside hires.
Instead, housing allowances for outside hires are being dropped, withdrawn, leaving such hires, in effect, with as much as a 25% cut in pay.
Is it any wonder that so many are leaving–at CHC as well as elsewhere?
“Differential” pay for CHC – for working night hours instead of the normal day-time hours – has also been stopped.
This represents another 15% cut in pay. Is it any wonder so many CHC doctors, technicians, other staff are leaving?
No one can afford such cuts. Nor should they be expected to.
There must also be recognition of the costs for achieving and maintaining professional proficiency.
The CNMI salary scales do not, in general, make any provision for the years of education and training, the levels of skill and experience, the cost of annual continuing education, that are required to become a Certified Public Accountant, a nephrologist, an oncologist, a pharmacist, an attorney.
I have not tried to calculate whether the savings and the costs cancel each other out.
It does seem, however, that more wisdom and less haste would go a long way towards keeping CHC’s much-needed doctors and staff, among others, from resigning in such numbers.
RUTH L. TIGHE
Tanapag, Saipan
