Extended maternity leave implications

In her article titled Another Four Weeks For Mums (November 28) Grace Attard, president of the National Council of Women, portrays a rather negative picture of employers' attitudes towards the strengthening of family-friendly measures, accusing them of "lack of will to seek adequate solutions". It seems that her detachment from the world of business leads her to make sweeping statements which ignore the complexity and consequences of the extension of such measures on employment and competitiveness.

Her assumption that an extension of maternity leave will automatically increase the birth rate is overly simplistic. Ms Attard acknowledges that Malta has one of the lowest female participation rates in the labour force, and also that we have a relatively low birth rate. This effectively means that the low birth rate cannot be attributed to the fact that Maltese women are working because - according to our statistics - many of them are not. Therefore, an extension of maternity leave cannot be assumed to lead to an automatic increase in the fertility rate. The maternity leave entitlement in the United States is far less than the European average (there is no legislation for paid maternity leave in the US), and yet both the fertility rate and the female participation rate are higher than those in many EU countries, Malta included. In fact the fertility rate in the US, at 2.09, is close to the replacement rate. In the EU the fertility rate lags behind at 1.05. The socio-cultural factors that have contributed to a decline in the number of births in many industrialised countries are more complex than Ms Attard would have us believe. Lest I be misinterpreted, I emphasise that I am not advocating the removal of paid maternity leave in Malta.

Ms Attard states that the NCW and trade unions "have sought adequate solutions believing in a win-win outcome" with reference to temping agencies. Employers have never resisted the setting up of a legal framework for temping agencies. In fact, we have been campaigning for it for years. She is also oblivious to the fact that there have been cases where unions have threatened employers with industrial action when temporary agency workers were engaged in their companies. Moreover, temping agencies do not provide adequate solutions for all absences, particularly where substantial training periods are involved for an employee to be sufficiently substituted. One also expects that once there will be an increase of temping workers to accommodate requests for family-friendly measures, employers will be accused of engaging people on precarious employment. With some people, you never win!

Employers cannot commit themselves to support the extension of the maternity leave before it is specified whether this will be paid, and, if so, at what rate and by whom. While in Malta it is taken for granted that maternity leave is compensated at full pay, facts in many other EU states show otherwise. There are cases where maternity leave is paid at minimum wage, not paid at all, or paid by the state. These are the issues that have to be ironed out if there is to be a serious debate about the subject.

Employers would also expect NCW to promote safeguards against abuse by employees. Currently, employees are expected to work for a minimum of six months after they go back to work following a period of paid maternity leave. There are many cases where there is a rampant abuse of sick leave during this period, and that employees are also entitled to the accumulated vacation leave during this period of absence, which makes it even more costly to employers.

The issue of extended maternity leave, and its implications to employers, has also to be approached within the wider context of family-friendly measures and vacation leave. In a country which boasts among the highest number of paid vacation leave days in the world, the added costs of some family-friendly measures will have a more pronounced effect on productivity and competitiveness. Would the NCW advocate a trade-off or does the traffic only flow one way? These arguments offer a more sensible approach to the topic than hurling unfounded accusations at employers.