Let us first get some broad but clear work definitions out of the way. A definite period contract is an employment agreement entered into by an employee and an employer for an agreed period of time, and the relationship ceases the moment the agreed period expires.
A part-time contract of employment, for a definite or an indefinite period, is an agreement to work scheduled or unscheduled hours being less than 40 hours per week.
A self-employed contract implies an individual giving a defined and qualified service to a company, or a client, and there is no employment relationship between the parties.
These three voluntary ways of working are each regulated by relevant legislation and like all employment are subject to monitoring and surveillance by the competent government authorities, (Labour Office), for any abuses or irregularities.
No doubt these three types of work relationships constitute flexible tools to employers, much needed in a complex and developed economy. These types of relationships also offer convenient ways of working in the interest of those individuals who require them. Overall these varied ways of working encourage and ensure that all potentially available work resources are taken up with the full benefit to the economy and society
Unfortunately, we are currently witnessing a misguided concerted attack on these ways of working. It is being alleged that these ways of working are rife with unchecked abuses and so require more restrictive legislative interventions. It is also being mentioned that these ways of working imply intrinsic inferior conditions.
This attack seems to be the product of particular unions’ muddled thinking, as they attempt to define definite, part-time and self-employed arrangements as “precarious ways of working”, hence inferior and exploitative of workers. These unions are wrong to attack the definite period, part-time and self-employed methods of working in themselves, but should be instead focusing on real abuses in the world of work, abuses perpetrated against vulnerable employees. It is puerile to repeatedly describe in public, and give examples of, condemnable malpractices of a few particular rogue employers then fail to publicly identify these offenders and duly report them to the Labour Office, or the police, where criminal offences are concerned.
Is it not obvious to everyone that demanding wage kickbacks from employees is a criminal offence? Even before the entry of additional regulations, was it not obvious to Labour Office that a waiter or a security guard could not pass himself to be a self-employed person? We do not need additional regulations and legislation to ensure a civilised world of work. We do not need to complicate the world of work to an extent that work creation is inhibited and entrepreneurs discouraged.
What we do need are serious players of integrity, be they politicians, unions’ and employers’ representatives and most important of all professional and committed public officials, who are encouraged, supported and are willing, to fulfill their enforcement role.