For close to half a century, The Times has been opposing the summer half-day work schedule in the public service, arguing that the island cannot possibly afford this when it is trying so hard to step up its economic development to raise the standard of living.
Summer half days, it has maintained, have acted as a brake to private industry that is geared to working all day, winter and summer. Well, it is now time to correct the stand to take into account new developments such as, for instance, the introduction of e-government – the facility to make use of government services online – and new work arrangements considered suitable to meet new life exigencies, such as flexitime.
The issue over summer half days in the public service has been brought to the fore again by the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry, who described them as a luxury and argued that they should have been abolished in the new collective agreement for the public service.
What really needs to be discussed today is not whether summer half days ought to be abolished altogether but what key government services are needed in summer that are not being provided because of the working schedule in place today.
First of all, it would need to be stressed that workers in the public service do not have fewer working hours. They compensate for the fewer hours they work in summer by working extra time in winter.
So long as the public is served, there would seem to be no reason why government workers should not adjust their work schedule in summer.
If flexitime makes sense in private industry, there ought to be no reason why it should not make sense in the government service. However, the schedule should provide, as it already does in a number of sectors, that the working hours are adjusted to be able to meet the needs of the public.
When so many government services are today provided online, what other services are required to be available on summer afternoons?
And if such services are also offered on summer afternoon, what would be the likely public response? It would, after all, be useless and a sheer waste of public time and money if the Administration provides a service that the public does not really need.
One report about the negotiation of the collective agreement for the public service stated that it contained a number of family-friendly measures. The provisions include the introduction of flexitime for personal reasons and the facility to take part of the available vacation leave on an hourly basis.
Why should flexitime only be introduced for personal reasons? Different departments have different work operations and working time ought therefore to be adjusted accordingly.
The measuring rod ought to be efficiency and service and it is on these two parameters that working schedules should be based, not only in the public service but also in government-owned companies and in private firms providing a service to the public.
A risible case of a service not matching the consumers’ requirements is the one provided by electricity meter readers who expect householders to be right on their doorstep when they call, thinking that the world stops for meters to be read.
With the installation of smart meters this is going to be solved in time but the matter is only being given as an example of a bad service. Malta must continue to adapt to changing times.