The issue about adjusting sick leave payment that has been raised during the Prime Minister’s visit at the Toly factory inevitably alarmed trade unions. It was proposed that no payment should be made by the employer for the first three days of sick leave. The goal is obviously to lessen abuse and, more importantly, to reduce labour costs and thus increase competitiveness.

Introducing such a measure would surely mean a further reduction of workers’ benefits after the recent amendment regarding public holidays falling on weekends. It shall also be unfair on at least the honest majority of workers. Nevertheless, one still has to tackle existent lacunas present in employment laws about sick leave benefit entitlements.

Most organisations today, especially those regulated by collective agreements, certify employees’ sickness claims by sending the company doctor. Those who are familiar with this system know that it can hardly be abused by employees. Thus, one may doubt claims being made regarding possible sick leave abuse on a broad scale.

Moreover, one must also consider existent differences in various wage regulation orders when it comes to sick leave entitlements. For instance, those employed in the construction industry are entitled to sick leave payments by the employer after completing a one-year service. These workers, who most of them are paid the minimum wage, are already disadvantaged by the WRO in this regard and penalising them furthermore will surely be unfair and dangerous.

It is not surprising that sometimes building contractors complain about their difficulties in finding workers who are ready to work in this sector. Everyone is aware of the worrying amount of injuries that occur in this particular sector. The possible introduction of the mentioned non-payment for the first three days of sick leave augments the eventuality of such incidents. Employers should also bear in mind the trouble involved whenever such unfortunate incidents occur, in which workers are justly entitled up to one-year injury leave.

There seemingly is a difficulty in non-unionised workplaces when employers decide to send their medical doctor to check employees when they call in sick. The difficulty may arise once an employee, who is already certified by his doctor, is not found at home or gets re-examined and found fit for work by the company doctor. What the law simply states in most WROs is that the employee is to produce a medical certificate covering the period of absence.

The present legislation does not provide a clear-cut solution regarding similar situations and it requires clarification for both employer and employee. Providing company doctors is an added burden for small enterprises. The government should consider aiding such organisations by providing doctors to examine particular situations in which there is suspect of abuse.

One needs to be careful when it comes to industrial relations and further degrading working conditions may provoke unnecessary and harmful friction. If introduced, the idea would step up workers’ discontent and apathy at the workplace, resulting in a lack of dignity and productivity.

It is not an ideal solution that in order to compete with Asian sweatshops, one takes on to induce the same conditions in a state with a prevalent European culture such as Malta. Solving the situation of lack of national competitiveness requires diverse solutions, some of which were pointed out during the same Toly visit.