The debate over who should fund maternity leave was rekindled last week by the Malta Employers’ Association, prompting generally positive reactions from experts and stakeholders.
Under Maltese law, mothers are entitled to 14 weeks off on full pay financed by their boss and a further four weeks at €160 per week paid by the State.
One of the MEA’s proposals for the 2014 Budget was to “phase out” the expense carried by employers for maternity leave. This was “affecting women of child-bearing age in finding employment as they have a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis male applicants,” according to the association.
Anna Borg, an academic at the University’s Centre for Labour Studies, said maternity leave should be fully funded by the State.
She pointed out that the burden placed on employers in Malta was heavier than in other EU member states. In Sweden, which is widely considered to offer the most generous parental leave entitlements, the government pays 80 per cent of a parent’s salary for 420 days, capped at 910 krona (€103) a day.
Despite such generous State-funded provisions, Sweden consistently has one of the highest rates of female workforce participation in the EU, while Malta’s is among the lowest.
Ms Borg felt that putting the onus on the State could boost the Maltese economy in the long run by encouraging more women to embark on careers.
“Currently, if you had two equally qualified [male and female] candidates for a job, you would know you have to carry that extra burden of paying a woman [if she has a child] to stay at home,” she said, pointing out that employers would also have to pay for a short-term replacement.
Mariella Azzopardi, treasurer of the Malta Association of Women in Business, said the island had a high proportion of small and micro businesses that struggled to cover the costs of maternity leave, particularly if they had a predominantly female workforce.
If you had two equally qualified candidates, you know you have that extra burden of paying a woman
But she was not in favour of the Government shouldering the full burden, suggesting the adoption of a hybrid model.
“The company could pay into a maternity fund, like a pension fund, with the Government financing a percentage of the wage,” she suggested, adding that if the State covered all the costs it would be the taxpayer who suffered in the long term.
She cited the example of Denmark, where new parents are entitled to benefits funded by taxation but employers are also obliged to pay into “leave funds” to pool the cost of covering sickness and maternity leave.
Grace Attard, vice president of the National Council of Women, said maternity had to be seen not only as a personal matter but as contribution to society in raising a healthy generation.
She pointed out that any employer who discriminated against a female job candidate on the basis of her intention to be a mother was breaking the law, regardless of who funded maternity leave.
Ms Attard took issue with employers who viewed their obligations to pregnant workers purely in terms of their immediate financial outlay.
Maternity leave “encourages some of our highly-qualified women to seek employment and that is what employers need to look at when recruiting,” she said.
“Talking about ‘phasing out’ maternity leave is extremely vague and short-sighted. Employers are very good negotiators, so they should come up with solid proposals and negotiate with the Government on incentives to share or reduce expenses.”
The Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations said State-funded maternity leave should be seen as an investment which would bring benefits to the country.
While insisting that maternity leave should continue to be paid in full, the confederation argued that the system in place worked against women, “in that employers may be tempted to choose a man over a woman in view of the extra burdens”.