Government should pay maternity leave - MEA
The government should start paying the maternity leave benefits, the Malta Employers’ Association said.
The association is proposing that from the next budget and over a transitional period of four years, the cost of paying for maternity leave – which currently stands at 14 weeks - will be shifted to the government.
MEA said that Malta was one of the few countries where maternity leave was paid by the employer, and the prospect of an extension of such leave, which was being discussed at EU level, threatened to increase costs to employers and also to create a disadvantage for women seeking employment.
The association added that if the obligation for female employees to work for six months after the maternity leave was going to be removed, as was being said by some MEPs, employers should not pay for maternity leave as the employee would not be required to work after the maternity leave would have expired.
To be competitive, employers had to have a level playing ground with competing companies operating in other countries where maternity leave was paid by the government.
This proposal is one of a package that are to be presented to MCESD in the coming days.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
D.Galea
Oct 13th 2010, 08:31
Dear MEA,
The employers has always been and is still very competitive with other countries. As you well know the average Maltese salary is under the EU average salary. You complain that Malta has the least percentage of females that are in the workforce and then most employers try to remove as much as possible the working conditions(this apply to fe/males). THAT'S AN INCENTIVE?????????
You may only complain that the profits might be go down a little but you are still on the profit side.
Employers (including Banks) start to cry when they say that their profits had a down trend but do not offer a small part of their profits when they are make, with the help of the employees. PROFITS.
Its true that the employers put their money in business from where employees get an income but it is also true that without the employees there is no income (profits) for the employers
martinsaliba
Oct 12th 2010, 20:43
Ive said it before and i'll say it again. I would never employ a woman of child bearing age. You also have to think twice before employing a male married to a woman of child bearing age as he to is , as far as i know , eligable for parental leave. There are many who are in favour of
maternity only because they do not employ anyone so it would not effect them. But as soon as they hear of a proposal that the goverment should pay , with which i would support 100% , they say that it not fair because it would be paid from their taxes. Two wieghts and two measures. Everybody want others to do something as long as you dont ask them for anything.
robert micallef
Oct 12th 2010, 17:03
i owe a small company employing 2 female sales reps. one of them is pregnant so i can say that 50%of my workforce will be out on maternity leave soon. this will be for me a big problem as no one would want to work for just a short time. plus if i do get someone i would need to train him/her for 2-3 months.
can u imagine what would happen if 50% of AirMalta's employees had maternity leave at one time ? im sure the company would go down.
There are many incentives for training etc so i think any help on maternity leave would only help women find work more easily.
i do know of people who do not employ woman just for this reason
a cassar
Oct 13th 2010, 10:49
Sorry but if the government pays your employee for her maternity leave what will it solve for you ? Your problem stems from the fact that being a small business & only employs 2 people you re gonna find it hard to replace.
P.Cassar
Oct 12th 2010, 16:48
WHAT A CHEEK !!!!
AND THESE ARE THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO, WHEN WAGES ARE INCREASED, SAY THAT THE GOVT CANNOT TAKE IT. WANTING BREAD BUTTERED ON BOTH SIDES.
George Swindells
Oct 12th 2010, 16:08
I have been saying this repeatedly since the issue came up. If Governments want benefits to be extended to employees then they should pay for them. In the case of I have the greatest respect for women to have as many babies as they want, but not at the expense of employers. As all Governments are looking to small business's to bolster the employment market the loading of this sort of social policy on their backs will be crippling.In our case we employee 4 young women. If any one of them goes on maternity leave we lose 25% of our staff. If we replace them our labour costs are increased by the same amount. How can we recover this? We can't. So please consider ALL the implications of Social Policies before implementing them, or Governments may find a lot of small business's disappearing.
T Camilleri
Oct 12th 2010, 16:04
The employers are obliged to pay maternity leave not us taxpayers through the government. Get a life MEA. You wanted free market competition. Now you compete or get out of the market.
wally vella-zarb
Oct 12th 2010, 16:58
Employers already have 'a life'; more than that, they also provide a livelihood to many people. While social benefits are very laudable, if this scenario were to be implemented, why would an employer take on a female employee? To pay 14 weeks' (or more) salary for something which - to put it bluntly - is manifestly self-inflicted, only to have the employee disappear once the maternity leave has expired? What does an employer gain though this compulsory 'social benefit'? It is very easy to be generous with other people's assets; governments seem to delight in this approach.
To paraphrase your 'reasoning' women wanted equality; in this case, they are enjoying favourable discrimination because they are more 'equal' than men.
N.Farrugia
Oct 12th 2010, 15:54
This MEA proposal is most unfair with all tax-paying citizens. It means that they are going to be taxed for every single pregnancy that occurs with every woman working in the country. MEA should also ask the government to pay for the nappies! Mhux hekk!!
Chantal Le Roux Briffa
Oct 12th 2010, 22:05
I think a country benefits when women have children so yes it is normal that maternity leave is paid for with our taxes. A country also benefits when women work so companies have to be encouraged to hire women. When an employer has to pay for maternity leave, doesn't it make sense to hire a man instead?