The general election saga

In the frenzied race to win votes, at all costs, a worrying trend has developed in the behaviour of the two big parties. Promises have got out of control and more and more promises are being made as the parties set no rational or realistic limit to their offers.

Private sector jobs are real productive jobs, efficiently performed

The Labour and Nationalist election programmes have become very similar on so many issues. It is discouraging how the situation has degenerated to a competition whereby the two main contenders emulate each other, often without much thought or consideration as to the validity and sustainability of the proposals. It is being assumed that a section of the electorate will be influenced by that marginal extra promise.

Never mind that the funding of all this bounty will have to come from voters’ taxes or else from debt to be incurred, in the name of the same taxpayers, possibly causing deficit budgeting. Then there are other measures announced that may initially appear to bear no cost but, in reality, hide a hidden cost burden that will provoke problems. For example, there is the surprise proposal to entitle employees to utilise their sick leave not only to cover their own absences, due to indisposition, but also their absence from work due to the need to care for sick children and elderly parents.

No doubt, this cannot be defined as an anti-social measure. However, I ask, has anybody, from both parties, bothered to go into the implementation problems and costs involved ?

If a child is sick who is going to pay a week’s salary for no productive work done: the father’s employer or the mother’s? Will this option be in the hands of the employees? Will both parents absent themselves from work? Will employers now have a right to request a child’s sickness certificate? Will the caring parent be confined to his/her home for the period the child is sick?

Employers have repeatedly warned politicians to avoid adopting or proposing measures that continue to increase the cost of labour. Has this measure been costed?

This added cost can have dire consequences. Has it occurred to the politicians that this measure will imply an increase in the disruption of workflows as employees will be absenting themselves from work more often? It seems not and it further results that absolutely no consultation whatsoever was done by the two parties with the bodies most affected by this measure.

On this sick leave issue, employers seem to have been of no concern to politicians. The big issue is now votes. Never mind that employers in the private sector provide 120,000 productive jobs and are now expected to create a further 25,000 in the next five years.

It has been stated that this proposed flexibility, in the use of sick leave, is intended to promote more female work participation. No doubt, the measure does make work participation more attractive to women. However, by shifting the cost on employers, work creation is being hindered and not helped.

Additional expenses finally affect the cost of the end product so that competitiveness and sustainability of a business concern will be affected. This measure, as proposed, will work against job security and job creation.

It is a pity how, in this vote- catching frenzy, there is often not much concern for the important and critical role that employers are called upon to assume. Some politicians like to project themselves as the real creators and providers of jobs. They project themselves as the protectors of workers from rapacious and exploitative employers.

It is a pity that entrepreneurs and business people are often depicted as shady characters meddling in politics for personal gain. The real truth is far removed from this general negative image.

Private sector jobs are real productive jobs, efficiently performed. This unlike so many, but not all, jobs in the public sector and government companies where politicians reign over wasteful inefficiencies, overmanning and outright useless posts.

What a waste of taxpayers’money. It is, however, to be declared that the blame for such a situation is not to be laid at the door of public sector employees but, rather, at the door of their managers and the political masters.

When will we see a somewhat more mature and responsible behaviour from more of our politicians? Probably after the election, whoever wins, when responsible governance, within feasible and realistic parameters, will have to occur.

Airy-fairy proposals and promises that are not sustainable will be conveniently allowed to recede from memory and a focus on the sensible and achievable will hopefully prevail.