|
 |
|
James Debono
Improving working conditions is the cornerstone in the policy of any social democratic party, which is why anyone would expect the Malta Labour Party’s new policy document to be one step ahead of previous policies by offering concrete solutions to everyday problems met by the party’s working class constituency.
The 18-page document offers a good diagnosis of the problems eroding the competitiveness of the country’s workforce but does not entirely succeed in providing innovative solutions.
The one area where Labour’s new document comes close to matching real problems with concrete solutions is when it addresses the low female participation in the labour market.
Labour’s cocktail of solutions includes subsidised childcare centres, extended school hours and flexitime in the public sector.
It also proposes an alternative for parents who still distrust institutionalised child care by proposing ‘shared mothering’; a system through which mothers would be able to earn some extra money taking care of other mothers’ kids in their own home.
Yet this solution also raises questions on how home based childcare is to be regulated to ensure that standards applying to public establishments also apply to private homes.
Despite offering some concrete solutions on childcare the MLP falls short of saying how it plans to subsidise childcare facilities. Childcare remains a very expensive option for low and middle-income families and only a significant financial incentive can make this option feasible. Labour also falls short of saying how it plans to finance this major social reform.
The MLP’s original economic and social regeneration plan published in 2004 had proposed an innovative voucher system linked to childcare facilities but the new document makes no reference to this system used in Nordic countries.
Surprisingly the document makes no reference to single parents – the category which needs child support services most.
The MLP deserves credit for being the first Maltese party to address the precariousness characterising some of the new jobs in Malta’ increasingly liberalised labour market. 23,000 workers in Malta depend on part-time work for a living. Labour makes a solemn commitment to address the rights of this category of workers in any changes it intends to enact in the pension system.
It also makes a vague commitment that part-timers should enjoy the same rights as full-time workers. Presently only part-timers working for more than 19 hours benefit from the same benefits as other employees. Part-timers working for fewer hours do not benefit from sick leave, bonuses and leave. It is custom practice in a number of companies to employ part timers for a bit less than 19 hours.
It is not clear whether the MLP is proposing that part-timers should benefit from these rights on a pro-rata basis irrespective of the number of hours they work.
The document also fails to address the growing rift between different categories of workers. It is too silent on the need to restructure public corporations and authorities whose work practices shield workers from the realities of the outside world.
While highlighting precariousness in the private sector, it fails to address the over-protection of some workers in the public sector – an inequality which is creating distortions in the labour market.
While proposing positive changes in the way the Employment Training Corporation is run by doing away with political appointments and giving a greater role to the social partners in its running, the document fails in proposing measures aimed at curbing work in the black economy.
The document is very cautious in proposing any measures, which increase the costs for businesses. No mention is made to raising the minimum wage.
While increasing the minimum wage would increase costs for employers it would also encourage more workers to leave the black economy to join the labour market. Presently the difference between living on benefits and earning the minimum wage is considered to be too small to be a real incentive for legal employment.
Neither does the document offer any incentives to socially responsible businesses. One way for the government to intervene without increasing costs for businesses is by setting new tender regulations which give extra points to companies which offer decent conditions for their workers.
In its bid to improve workers’ living standards the document vaguely hints at a greater role for the government in restraining the cost of living. Yet the document does not explain how inflation can be restrained except by saying that any measure must be permitted by the European Union.
While recognising that Malta can no longer compete by offering low wages, the MLP still sees a role for the manufacturing sector, insisting that Malta can compete by offering a better skilled and educated work force. To get there, the MLP document speaks of the need for a more career-oriented educational system.
The MLP also seeks to create vocational opportunities for that category of students who do not fulfil the requirements for joining MCAST. Ensuring that all students acquire some skills before finishing their studies would be a priority for Labour.
One serious shortcoming of the document is that it fails to mention the reality of immigrant workers whose working conditions are among the worst. The illegal employment of this category of workers is creating a distortion in the labour market. Regulating this sector of the labour market could offer businessmen a greater supply of workers for jobs which are not done by the Maltese while ensuring a level-playing field for all workers irrespective of nationality.
Unfortunately race and colour still don’t seem to matter even in a document prepared by a supposedly left-leaning party.
[email protected] |
