Cargando...“What can I pay an innovator for high performance? Who says so? Where is it written? Well, I’m finding out from you, I didn’t know…” said that director from Matanzas, a little surprised, a little embarrassed, while admitting he had accumulated profits to apply it, and innovators and rationalizers who deserved it.
Precisely in the territory of Yumuri (Matanzas), an analysis at the Secretariat of the Provincial Committee of the Workers’ Central Union of Cuba drew attention to the fact that by the end of the first semester of 2025, this concept had only been applied at the Juan Gualberto Gómez International Airport, at ARCOS Varadero in construction, and at the Antonio Guiteras thermoelectric plant.
To that trio of aces in managing their workforce was limited the payment for high performance up to that period, and this contrasts with another 57 entities that distributed profits, thereby missing the opportunity to congratulate their own.
The numbers, at least in this western province, reveal a marked gap between what is established in Section Two of Chapter I of Decree Law 34 of 2021 on high‑performance pay, and how it is applied within companies.
It is not only a quantitative matter—if only it were. That at this point there is little use of the alternative is at the very least worrying, because it could be determined by ignorance, negligence, or an underestimation of timely and real economic incentives, which are the best defense of the human right to fair remuneration and its proven impact on productivity, workplace climate, and commitment to the entity.
While searching for some data for this commentary, the director of an important company insisted that no one can force him to reach into his pockets to resort to such an option, when “people did very well with the amounts of profits.”
And although it is true that this is the prerogative of managers, the final word belongs to the management council, including the opinion of the trade union organization, not always prepared or willing to question when the moment demands it, or to promote consideration of the incentive, if economic and financial conditions allowed.
Conceived to recognize the exceptional contribution in production and services of a worker or brigade, one factor against its generalization lies in the poor negotiating capacity of unions to ensure the option is endorsed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and especially in regulations.
In the workplace, where wealth is created, the organization must assert its authority—not to give away money, but to honor those who deserve it, once or as many times as agreed. Not doing so implies a loss of credibility resulting from failing to fulfill representation as a foundational mandate.
The possibility of receiving income consistent with individual contribution was placed by the Cuban State in the hands of enterprise managers when it began to loosen ties, decentralize, and grant autonomy. And it did so with the aim of achieving efficient, competitive entities and that ever‑closer relationship that must exist between the categories of employment and salary.
In a Cuba sustained by the daily heroism of its workers, it is almost an affront to overlook the stance of the lathe operator who saved the factory, the mechanic who got the thermoelectric plant running, the one who put the bus back in service, the one who prevented technological disaster or the theft of raw materials…
High performances are always there. To see them, one must monitor, measure, rise to their level, and revere them.
