"Zaman Al-Wasl" has obtained new data revealing the extent of administrative uncertainty within the Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC). The salary and compensation scale has become a contentious issue—not merely due to the figures involved, but because of the transition between two different organizational structures.
First: From Multiple Entities to a Single Company
Prior to the formation of the "Syrian Petroleum Company," the oil sector was fragmented across several institutions and companies, each with its own structure and decision-making processes. These entities included the General Petroleum Corporation, the Syrian Oil Company, the Syrian Oil Transport Company, the Syrian Gas Company, and the Syrian Gas Transport Company. Following the merger, a new structure was established; however—according to a company employee—it is still being implemented on a "trial basis" without having been formally ratified by an official decree.
This situation has created a sort of "limbo" or "floating zone": the old structure has not been legally dissolved, yet the new one lacks the legitimacy of an official decree. Consequently, some employees who were officially relieved of their duties and replaced continue to cling to their original appointment orders to claim the associated titles and salaries. This can result in a single position appearing under two designations: the incumbent holding the original title, and a new appointee drawing a salary based on the new title.
Second: The Salary Scale—Figures Sparking Controversy
According to the data obtained by "Zaman Al-Wasl," the current salary scale is based exclusively on the administrative position held, disregarding academic qualifications and practical experience. Figures indicate that a "Section Head" earns $600, a "Department Head" $550, and a "Unit Head" $500; meanwhile, a university graduate without a specific title receives $400, whereas an employee with only a preparatory school certificate holding the rank of "Unit Head" earns $500.
The paradox here is stark: an employee with a preparatory school certificate and the title of "Unit Head" earns $500, while a university graduate—either untitled or holding the rank of "Assistant"—earns $400. This represents a $100 difference—equivalent, according to the complaint, to approximately 1,020,000 Syrian pounds—in favor of the less-qualified individual. Since the pay scale is based on job title rather than educational qualifications or experience, the less-qualified employee sometimes ends up with higher pay.
Thirdly: Selectivity—who gets promoted, and who is required to produce an old appointment decree?
The employee points to a "partial or selective" implementation of the new organizational structure. Some officials were easily transitioned from old titles to new ones, while others faced bureaucratic hurdles. He cites the example of a "Department Head" under the old structure who was transferred to the title of "Section Head" in the new structure and received $600. In contrast, "Assistant Unit Heads" from the old structure were neither promoted nor designated as "Unit Heads"; instead, they were required to produce formal appointment decrees.
The paradox, as he sees it, is that an old title is accepted for some but not for others. This opens the door to favoritism and complicates employment rights that should ideally be governed by clear, unambiguous regulations. The source believes this inconsistency undermines the principle of workplace equity, particularly when an old job title is accepted for some employees but rejected for others.
Fourth: What are the employees demanding?
Employees are calling for a series of corrective measures. They advocate for a review of all previous decisions and the issuance of new decisions—bearing current dates—for all staff appointed under the new organizational structure. They insist that no single past decision should be relied upon in isolation and that the pay scale should be linked to a combination of qualifications, experience, and job titles, rather than titles alone. Furthermore, they demand the halting of any lists containing fictitious names or designations.
An Open Question
The problem at the Syrian Petroleum Company is not merely a matter of salary adjustments here or there; it is a crisis regarding the governing framework—specifically, which authority, structure, and decisions should prevail.
While the demand to "annul previous decisions" reflects legitimate frustration, it requires careful legal scrutiny to avoid plunging the situation into further chaos. What is certain, however, is that maintaining two parallel structures, a pay scale that disregards qualifications, and a selective approach to job titles will only breed more controversy—and a deeper sense of injustice among the staff.
Zaman Al-Wasl
Zaman Al Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.