There is a proposal to make the employment contracts of middle managers in the public sector fixed-term. Five years of work and then a new competition. Is such a system common elsewhere in Europe?
To our knowledge, there are no other countries where the term of office of middle managers would be fixed-term. Middle managers are officials, not employees with employment contracts. Such a system does not exist in Europe.
What risks and positive aspects does such a system bring?
The positive aspect is that new people can get jobs. However, the problem is that Estonia already has high staff turnover. A study showed that 46% of middle managers work in their position for less than three years.
In the Riigikogu, it is believed that fixed-term appointments make officials politically influenced. Is this a real problem?
Yes, this is a real threat. Public service is usually permanent. Officials must be able to work independently of politics. People should get jobs based on their skills, not political preferences.
The EU directive protects against excessive use of temporary contracts. The draft states that after two terms (10 years), the position becomes permanent. Is this in conflict with the directive?
Yes, according to the directive, temporary contracts should not be used if the work is not temporary. Public sector work is not temporary. The question is whether 10 years is justified.
If the goal is to promote rotation, the draft works against it. After 10 years, a person can stay in the position for 25 years without a competition. This does not encourage new people to come.
Currently, the problem is with those who work for 2-5 years. These people are good specialists. The draft makes their situation uncertain.
In conclusion, the draft does not solve problems. It increases turnover and threatens the independence of officials.
The draft also includes the possibility of paying up to 50,000 euros in bonuses for major projects. Is it clear which projects fall under this?
The regulation is general. A commission will decide who gets the bonus. The criteria are not precisely defined. This may cause problems.
In the private sector, bonuses are common. Why can't the state operate the same way?
The difference is that the private sector aims to make a profit. In the public sector, results are often debatable. Bonuses may be paid even without results.
The e-residency program has brought Estonia reputation, but its economic impact is controversial. The National Audit Office could not assess it precisely.
Could the renovation of the Tallinn-Pärnu highway receive a bonus?
The criteria are not clear. This may be too small a project. Currently, it is possible to pay performance bonuses up to 20% of the salary. The draft increases this to 30%.
The draft also includes a new thing: bonuses can be paid to departed employees. This makes accounting complicated.
Wouldn't it be simpler to raise the limit for performance bonuses rather than create new systems?
Yes, currently it is possible to pay up to 20% of the salary. The problem is not in financial motivation but in investments and management. Before changing the law, the right problem should be identified.