Since elections are part and parcel of our yearly calendar of national activities, the subject is a popular subject for conferences. Yet, unfortunately, we always tend to discuss this subject out of context about what is really going on in Malta. There are two issues that are affecting the scenario but which unfortunately are completely disregarded. I am referring to the working time directive and the maternity leave.
On these issues, we tend to differ strongly from the European tradition where health and safety issues are high on the agenda and, also where the state has a stronger commitment to ensure the welfare of the workers plus maintaining a stronger family through work-life balance.
If we take the working time directive, we tend to forget the objective behind this directive. This directive is intended to limit the working hours for health and safety reasons. There are also repercussions regarding the balance that is needed between work and family responsibilities. Yet, the effort by the EU Parliament to introduce this aspect in a more direct way, did not find the support it needed in the Council of Ministers. Basically the Directive tries to limit the working week to 48 hours per week. But the present Directive contains an opt-out clause to extend this limit to 60 hours per week if the worker agrees and in some cases even to 65 hours per week. In effect the working week limit is 60 hours per week as in reality the worker does not have the economic power to refuse if the employer so demands especially where the workers are not organised.
The recent EU Parliament’s effort was to make this Directive effective through the removal of the opt-out clause. There was a strong opposition from the Maltese government, among others, to ensure that the opt-out clause is not removed. Locally, this position has had a widespread support from all sides of the spectrum including unions. This was in spite of the fact that our unions were affiliated to the ETUC which strongly opposed the opt-out clause. The GWU’s position was closest to that of the ETUC as it supported the position that the opt-out clause could only be operational if it were operated through collective bargaining by a trade union on behalf of the workers. The idea is to regulate this opt-out clause so as not to endanger flexibility while guaranteeing health and safety as well as a better work-life balance.
This is only the surface as new practices are being introduced which flagrantly breach this Directive. A case in point regards the conditions under which the security guards are employed by certain companies. In order to try to breach this Directive, the same employee is employed by several companies owned by the same employer. Such employees are made to work for long hours in excess of even the 60 hours, let alone the 48 hours stipulated by the Directive. As a result, the employer simply gets the cake and eats it as this practice also enables the employer not to pay any overtime.
The question begs itself. Are such practices and our stand at the EU level in line with the balance that needs to exist between work and family commitments? And if they are not, why wasn’t any pressure made on the Maltese government to change its EU position and stop such practices?
If we take the other issue, that of maternity leave, the proposition is to extend the present period by another four weeks. Again the main purpose of this extension is to bring a better balance between family and career commitments. Yet again, our position opposes this extension of the maternity leave by another four weeks.
What is the present position regarding maternity leave? It is important to see the wider perspective especially since the main opposition to both initiatives comes from the government and the employers on the pretext that it is hampering our competitiveness. This argument is wrong as competitiveness will not improve through bad conditions of work or by letting wages fall, reducing workers’ vocation leave, abolishing Christmas parties for workers or reducing the work-life balance – all characteristics of cheap labour.
Competitiveness is simply not based on cheap labour but rather on highly skilled labour, a highly motivated labour force, innovativeness, and a better work-life balance to increase the labour force itself and participation in the labour market. These, together with other important factors, including a reduced government budget and an innovative government which can identify our opportunities and markets where we enjoy a comparative advantage, create an environment which attracts new investments.
Apart from this, everyone knows that the amount of maternity leave taken in private industry is very low. This does not result due to lower fertility of the workers in the private industry but rather due to devious methods used by employers to have such workers retire from the labour market and thus eliminating the need of maternity leave.
It is important to look at the issue of competitiveness as it is the main reason that is being given locally to block such changes and win the public opinion to such a conservative stand.
| Member State | Maternity Leave | Competitiveness Ranking |
| Austria | 16 weeks | 14 |
| Belgium | 15 weeks | 19 |
| Bulgaria | 315 days | 76 |
| Czech Rep | 28 weeks | 33 |
| Germany | 14 weeks | 7 |
| Denmark | 18 weeks | 3 |
| Estonia | 140 days | 32 |
| Greece | 17 weeks | 67 |
| Spain | 16 weeks | 29 |
| Finland | 105 days | 6 |
| France | 16 weeks | 16 |
| Hungary | 24 weeks | 62 |
| Ireland | 42 weeks | 22 |
| Italy | 5 months | 49 |
| Lithuania | 126 days | 44 |
| Latvia | 112 days | 54 |
| Malta | 14 weeks | 52 |
| Netherlands | 16 weeks | 8 |
| Poland | 18 weeks | 53 |
| Portugal | 120 days | 43 |
| Romania | 126 days | 68 |
| Sweden | 18 months | 4 |
| Slovenia | 105 days | 42 |
| Slovak Rep | 28 weeks | 46 |
| UK | 52 weeks | 1 |
| Maternity Leave: Social Agenda 19, Dec 08 Competitiveness Ranking 2008/9: Global Competitiveness Report, WEF | ||
The above table shows the number of maternity weeks that is given at law in 25 EU countries. Cyprus and Luxemburg are not included as they did not submit the information. If one analyses the competitiveness score with the number of weeks (maternity leave) one finds that the correlation coefficient is very low which indicates that competitiveness depends on other issues rather than the number of maternity weeks given. Thus the argument of competitiveness does not hold water.
But what are the arguments in favour of increasing maternity leave? At a time when we need to increase the employment rates, especially among the female population, women continue to represent a vast untapped potential to increase the labour force. Such measures as maternity leave will make work and family commitments more compatible and women would not need to decide either in favour of work or the family. Thus women participation in the labour market – a commitment we have under the Lisbon Agenda - would increase.
However, Ms Blair provided us with another justification. According to newspaper reports:
She admitted that in her case, she did not take much maternity leave, so as to prove that she could beat the men at their own game. But that, she said, was foolish, as it reinforced the obstacles which women faced. Maternity, she said, was special, and required special measures.
1 & 2 April 2009
It was a positive move that Ms Blair was hosted by the Prime Minister and his wife. I really hope that this might signify a change especially in government policies to really enhance the work-family balance. If we take this path, finally we might be putting our money where our mouth is!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment