It seems as if government is dead set on adding pubic holidays falling on weekends to the optional leave entitlement, irrespective of the consequences. This along with other projected measures which will increase absence from the workplace – utilisation of sick leave to look after children, paternal leave, etc. - is a concern to many companies as they will have to seek ways of compensating for loss of productivity. This is happening in a country which, with 24 days of optional leave and 14 public holidays, make it among the economies with the highest level of leave entitlement in the world.   

Those who might believe that this is a frivolous matter should take note that this measure will cost enterprises an average of 3.8 productive days per annum per employee in the coming five years (19 days over five years) if the full entitlement is increased with effect January 2018. If the same level of national output is to be maintained, employers will have to either increase overtime – which, besides being costly, will defeat the whole purpose of increasing leisure time to employees – or else to employ more people. An average of 3.8 days per person on a labour force of approximately 180k will require an additional three thousand three hundred people in the labour force to compensate for the lost days. Given the current state of quasi full employment, the economy will have to resort to foreign labour. While landlords and developers rejoice, employees will weep at rising rent and property prices, with more traffic congestion and an unnecessary increase in population.       

The MEA is conscious of the impact of the increase in public holidays on national productivity and has been insisting that if government is politically committed to proceed with its intentions, then it should compensate employers with other measures to retain competitiveness. It is within this context that the Association came out with the waiting day proposal, whereby the first day of sick leave will not be paid by the employer. This proposal was met with a chorus of disapproval from the Prime Minister, Claudio Grech, Minister Fearne and the unions who tried, unsuccessfully, to shout us down. Yet this choir seems to have suddenly lost its voice when faced with official figures by the National Statistics Office which reveal that in 2015 public sector employees took three times more sick leave than the average employee in the private sector.

It would have been more pertinent for our Minister for Health and management experts like Claudio Grech to investigate why the employees in the public sector suffer so much from poor health compared to their counterparts in the private sector.  It is not necessarily attributable to abuse, but could also be due to the psychological damage caused by gratuitious transfers, maybe boredom from having nothing to do, or the stress experienced by some public sector officials who have an excessive workload. Figures issued by the social security department for absences due to sick leave exceeding three days at a stretch, show that total expenditure during 2015 amounted to €44m. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that, if the sick leave absence in the public sector were to be reduced to the same level as that in the private sector, the state would save no less than €22m per annum. This amount would be more than sufficient to compensate private sector employees for the first day of sick leave if this is to become a waiting day. Unions should have no reason to oppose such a measure as it will not affect employees’ income and they always stated their support in efforts to curtail abusive practices.

All that employers are lobbying for is a quid pro quo, whereby any measures that will reduce productivity will be counterbalanced with others to retain competitiveness. This can only be achieved if stakeholders agree to approach the negotiation table with an open mind and a genuine intention to consult before implementation.

Joseph Farrugia Director General of the Malta Employers' Association