If you go to a big store like Supermaxi or Mi Comisariato you will find good service but not too many staff. If you go to a big hotel here or abroad, the same. If you go to an airline office, you will find people who are helpful but not overstaffed. The reason is very simple: regular or current costs are taken into account, otherwise the utility of the shareholders is reduced, and they, without questioning their social responsibility, seek as much utility as possible, which is quite legitimate. The number of people working in a public or private institution must be as much as is necessary to fulfill the institutional purpose. Not one less, not one more. If there is a surplus of staff in a public institution, the public service it provides is a big sacrifice: what is spent on that surplus, which is permanent, affects the investment in providing the service, which is also permanent. Consequently, any institutional reform project should prioritize the analysis of staff overspending. Well, if this analysis is “skipped”, the institutional reform to be considered will entail the same problem: a fixed cost that is not in line with the institutional purpose.

To save IESS

I remember the case of Banco del Pacífico: the government at the time decided to hire private management. I understand that the fee was high, but the result was excellent, good earnings, zero political influence, necessary personnel. The private management left, and the result was different: brutal redundancy, irrationality of the bank’s structure, reduced profits. When the change of management returned, a lot of money had to be invested in severance pay for redundant employees, the structure of the bank was reduced, and good results returned. Moral: someone else’s money, even more so if it is public, must be managed as if it were one’s own, without frivolity, always looking for the correct and efficient fulfillment of institutional purposes.

With 250 dollars from the state per member, contributions and savings for old age, a pension will be established, says the IESS reform proposal.

Money from ITT to IESS

The case of the IESS is pathetic: the 1998 Constitution mandated the initiation of “a deep transformation process to simplify its structure, modernize its management… recover its financial balance… so that it complies with the principles of social security and provides quality benefits and services in a timely and efficient manner. No comment. Almost 25 years later, we are in the same position with around 36,000 employees, according to the recent statements of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. IESS is a victim of its administrators and the passivity of its branches. The result is an institutional disaster that can be seen everywhere, despite the efforts of its president. I clearly remember that the audit commission that wanted to modernize the IESS, by applying the 1998 Constitution, ended up on the run, since it was accused of a crime whose commission was not credible. His “sin” was great: he wanted to transform IESS.

The modernization of IESS requires consideration of all factors. Also the uncomfortable ones. Cross yourself and trust God. (OR)