In a context where Malta still experiences significant inequality between men and women, where the caring burden is still placed squarely on women’s shoulders, and where the birthrate is the lowest in Europe, the government has largely opted for the bare minimum when it comes to implementing measures in the Work-life Balance (WLB) Directive for working parents and carers. This, to say the least, is most disappointing with the only exception being the fully paid 10 days of paternity leave.
Women’s organisations, parents who care for children with a disability, the fathers’ lobby groups and civil society in general have been excluded from the conversation in the run up to the transposition of this law, and it shows.
Apart from the 10 days paid paternity leave for fathers, which as mentioned above is positive, albeit insufficient, the rest of the measures go against the spirit of the Directive and are more than likely to increase the caring gap between women and men, rather than reduce it. As a result, in the eyes of employers, mothers will continue to be viewed as posing significantly more challenges, in contrast to men, whose conditions will continue to be viewed as the norm.
The Directive, which is being implemented just days before the transposition deadline, states that the 2 months of parental leave will be paid at sick-pay level. We question why the government decided to pay at sick-pay level, when the parents are not “sick” – they are caring for their children, today’s young citizens and tomorrow’s workforce, and who will be contributors towards society and the welfare state.
In real terms, this translates to €21.85 daily for parents. With the current rise in the cost of living, no one can afford to take this leave and the implementation of this Directive will be largely ineffective.
Expecting parents to live on a pay of €21.85 a day is beyond unrealistic. Such conditions will not only put off fathers from taking this leave, but mothers, too. Parents cannot afford to accept such a drastic reduction to their income, at a time when their family expenses are the highest.
If the government really wanted to encourage more parents to take up parental leave to close the caring gap and increase work life balance, it should have opted for a realistic pay rate which is as close as possible to the parents’ previous earnings. Instead, the government has opted to offer a miserly rate, a clear indication of how policy makers are out of touch with the realities of regular citizens.
The transposition of the Directive also fails to acknowledge that every birth is different, and that fathers, need to avail themselves of the utmost flexibility in their decision as to when to opt for the 10 days paternity leave. Furthermore, the Legal Notice binds parents to avail of their parental leave in established periods of at least two weeks. It also restricts parents when the paid leave can be taken. For example parents can only take one month of paid leave in the first four years, leaving the remaining months for when children are older. This lack of flexibility is, once again, indicative of a lack of understanding of family needs in a scenario where both parents work.
With regard to the 5 days unpaid caring leave, government is making a bold statement, in that, the authorities, essentially, are not giving caring its due importance since it is not attributing any pay or value to it.
The idea that caring should be provided for free simply perpetuates the charity model towards disability and those in need of care, and will, especially, impact negatively mothers’ and women’s earnings.
Women already bear the brunt of having to reduce their hours and take cuts in their monthly pay to be able to care for family members who need long term care. The fact that this leave is unpaid will make the situation worse for them, since it is highly unlikely that men will want to take up this unpaid leave, once again contributing towards an increase in the caring gap between women and men.
Furthermore, parents who care for children with a disability note that assistance services are decreasing instead of increasing, and the expectation to take on the responsibility for the missing care with no compensation for their lost earnings, is grossly unjust.
Added to this, such a measure is especially disappointing, in view of the fact that back in 2017, the government had launched a public consultation about paid leave for parents in the case of sick children, thus promising solutions. This was never followed up and to date, 5 years later, this promise remains unfulfilled.
In this context, we should also not forget the foreign workforce. The additional 4 weeks of maternity leave that the mothers are eligible for on top of the granted 14 weeks are only available to Maltese mothers, migrants with refugee status, EU nationals and non-Maltese mothers married to a Maltese. Are we going to see the same discriminatory behaviour against sections of foreign working mothers played out again in this Directive?
The right to request flexible work, in itself, is a positive concept, but it stops there – at concept stage. What will happen if the employer refuses to offer the flexibility? Who will decide if the request is fair or not? And why restrict it only to parents of children who are 8 years old or younger and to carers? Most workers need flexibility regardless of their status. This restriction tied to parents and carers will simply create an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality, putting those requesting flexible work arrangements for parenting and caring responsibilities in a bad light, and leaving many others without the flexibility option.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) claims that closing the unequal division of paid and unpaid care work between women and men is “possibly the most significant social development of the 21st Century”.
In this case, government is doing the opposite, to the detriment of all members of our society.
Organisations:
Moviment Graffitti
Malta Women’s Lobby – MWL
National Parents Society of Persons with Disability
Positive Birth Malta
The Maltese Daddy
aditus
