The report by Ivan Camilleri carried in the front page of The Times of July 4 gave a rather distorted view of the reasons why the new part-time regulations, which grant pro rata benefits to part- timers working more than eight hours a week, and whose job is their principal employment, came in force through the publication of Legal Notice 164.

The article gives the impression that the government issued the legal notice as a reaction to alleged abuses by employers, and because of pressure by the trade unions. In reality, the legal notice was issued because of a deadline set by the Commission for the implementation of the directives on part-time work, which clearly state that part-timers are entitled to pro rata entitlements available to full time employees.

The Malta Employers' Association acknowledges that EU directives have to be implemented, but also that this should be done in a manner that is consistent with economic strategy. The way in which the legal notice has been implemented in Malta means there is a significant disparity between the cost of a part-timer whose job is his principal employment, and another one who has a principal employment elsewhere. The implication is that employers will be constrained by competitive pressures to employ part-timers who already have a full-time job with another company where they pay social security. This is bad news for female returners and the unemployed in particular, who may be inclined to work on a part-time basis if they are given the option.

For this reason the MEA has proposed compensating measures to reduce this gap in relative costs. For example, it is recommending that the employer will also be given the option to pay pro rata social security for part-timers working more than eight hours but earning less than the minimum wage. It is expected that these compensating measures are implemented in the interest of both employers and part-time workers.

It is also expected that when a newspaper carries such reports, the views of employers are also featured.