Some of the largest groups of workers in the public sector were not yet adequately catered for in terms of family-friendly measures, according to Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

Speaking during the first meeting of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Family Affairs, she spelled out the concept of job sharing among specialised workers who could not afford to take career breaks or telework, such as doctors, paramedics, pharmacists and social workers.

In spite of the big shortage of nurses, for example, there were no child-caring facilities at Mater Dei Hospital, where more than 3,000 worked. These should have been included when the hospital was being built.

The same could be said for workers in Valletta. Most people found private nursery facilities too expensive.

Ms Coleiro Preca said this was not all. Most social services offices were in a shameful state to cater for vulnerable customers, with confidentiality practically unknown when strangers stood close by while private matters were being discussed. This was highly undignified.

Conditions at police stations were not much better.

While family-friendly measures existed almost exclusively in the public sector, the over-supply of potential employees on the job market made it hard to convince the private sector that it should pay to introduce such measures. Maybe incentives such as tax credits could go a long way to convince the sector. Although the private sector could never afford to carry the same family-friendly burdens as the government, there would be no breakthrough unless the government acted decisively.

The meeting was also attended by the other committee members, Jesmond Mugliett, Charlò Bonnici and Justyne Caruana.

The committee’s first guests were Principal Permanent Secretary Godwin Grima and members of the Public Administration Human Resources Office at the Office of the Prime Minister. They made a presentation of the history of family-friendly measures for both mothers and fathers, their introduction and uptake in a bid to reconcile employees’ work and family responsibilities.

Dr Grima said public-sector employees could donate their full vacation leave entitlement, or part thereof, to family members who were public employees and who were required to assist sick relatives or were themselves suffering from personal illness.

Employees could also donate part of their vacation leave to their colleagues for humanitarian reasons. Donated vacation leave could be banked and transferred between ministries as the case might be.

The HR Systems and Data Management Directorate currently collates data through an annual survey on the utilisation of family-friendly measures. The data are categorised by gender, salary-scale groups and ministry or public-sector entity. As of January 2012 the directorate will enhance the HR system through the integration of the absences module, which will enable it to categorise data on family-friendly measures utilisation by age, grade and regional variables.

Utilisation of family-friendly measures was highest among women employees, and the reduced-hours facility was the most popular one.

Dr Grima added that the greatest hurdle was convincing management that teleworking did not necessarily mean a drop in output. When management refused family-friendly measures employees could appeal, but there was no significant history of such appeals for fear of backlash at the workplace.

Dr Caruana said she knew of cases where women had not been allowed to go for ante-natal classes. When it came to urgent family leave, consideration should be given to the predicament of government employees in Gozo who must rush to Malta to visit sick relatives and, therefore, needed more time.

She also said people planning to adopt usually needed more help before than after the adoption. The eventual reply was that such public-sector employees could avail themselves of three months of unpaid leave for travelling.

Mr Bonnici suggested a committee meeting with representatives of the private sector to encourage them. He also asked what monitoring was done to ensure that beneficiaries were not later penalised, making for a disincentive.

Mr Mugliett observed that although most thought of ­family-friendly measures as being connected with the care of children, Malta’s aging society meant that such measures could also be needed to care for elderly relatives.

Dr Farrugia noted that the taking of responsibility leave could help in the release of social cases from hospitals, who would otherwise have nobody to care for them. Rini Laiviera, representing the National Council of Women, also intervened with some questions.

Towards the end of the meeting, Dr Grima said other kinds of leave were also to be seen as family-friendly measures.

The impact on fellow workers when employees were teleworking with files at home must also be considered.

Nowadays the onus of explaining why family-friendly measures were refused lay on the manager, not the employee.

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.