Part-time employment is very precarious. The recent announcement in the Budget, although it was meant to promote better fiscal justice for part-time employees, may not be such a boon, after all. Experience in other countries has shown that making part-time employment more attractive to employers may mean serious problems for breadwinners.

Let me make my definitions clear. What I am writing about is part-time employment which is not additional to a stable job and a source of additional income. What worries me is part-time employment which constitutes the employee's main source of income.

In Italy this was a political issue during the last general election. The Italian government had adopted most of the recommendations of its adviser Marco Biagi, who was subsequently murdered, and placed a lot of emphasis of part-time work.

Employers will find it certainly more convenient to have part-time employees, when this type of employment set-up is favourably considered in legislative instruments. There are fewer rights to the employee, whatever may be said that he has a proportion of all the guaranteed benefits according to law.

While part-time work may be convenient for a housewife who prefers to work a number of hours each week, the same cannot be said about the family breadwinner. It is a known fact that even with full-time employment certain strata of society are finding it difficult to make ends meet, let alone if their main source of income is reduced drastically.

In Italy, this is affecting the younger generation, who may be in part-time employment over a number of years. If my information is correct, what the present Italian government intends to do is change such contracts from part-time to full-time, once certain criteria have been met. Young people cannot be expected to start a family if their only income is from a part-time job.

Statistics

Statistics may show more employment, and fewer unemployed. The main problem today is underemployment and this is hitting not only the unschooled and those without any technical training. Even University students are finding that the going is rough for them, even though they have spent the best part of their lives with backs bent over the texts they have to study.

Two part-timers mean two employed for the employment statistics. It is a consoling prospect for governments to show that they have their records right, especially these days when impression and outward signs are more important than substance.

If this system is convenient for the government, it may also be very convenient for employers. Let us take the case of two employees working two successive shifts on the same day. The employer has better performance from each of them, as they both have to give their best when they are still relatively fresh and fatigue-free. In time, their performance wanes. The next one offers more.

With both of them the employer has an advantage. He knows that if one is fired, the replacement problem is halved, as one is already trained and the one who goes would not bring this line of activity to a standstill. This may not be a statistical figure, but certainly it is common sense from the employer's point of view. An employer having two or three companies may split contracts, and even though the employment is full-time taken globally, legally it may mean two part-time jobs. I have seen such an employment contract.

Future

What is particularly annoying in the increase in this system of part-time employment is the fact that, with social security contributions being paid proportionately, benefits are also in proportion to the payments made.

This is particularly worrying if the system takes root to such an extent that a whole sector of the employed would be under this regime. Year after year, the contributions are proportionate, but when the time comes for retirement, then it may well mean that their pensions are going to be proportionate as well. This is not fair. It is also socially unacceptable.

The problem may not be only that of what is a fair contribution to social security, but what should be the benefit if something goes wrong. It is futile to invite such persons, especially in their younger days, to invest in private pensions. Their part-time employment would not be rendering enough for them to have a decent living, let alone have money to spare for investing in a private plan.

Considering these factors, I would suggest, in a positive way of thinking, that part-time employees should be given the option to pay the full rates. If they are unwell or become jobless, should they only receive the meagre amount which is then also reduced proportionately?

Part-time is precarious. I was once a part-time teacher with the government. I know what I am talking about.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.