With the exception of the introduction of 10 days of paternity leave, the Maltese government's implementation of the EU's new rules on work-life balance, will increase the caring gap between women and men, lobbyists lamented on Thursday.

"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 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," the Malta Women’s Lobby, National Parents Society of Persons with Disability (NPSPD), Moviment Graffitti, Positive Birth Malta, The Maltese Daddy and aditus Foundation said in a statement.

They complained that women’s organisations, parents who care for children with a disability, fathers’ lobby groups and civil society were excluded from the conversation in the run-up to the transposition of this law, and it shows.

On August 2, legal notice 201 of 2022, amending the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, will come into force in Malta transposing the EU Work-Life Balance Directive into local law.

The changes will essentially extend paid paternity leave, introduce partially paid parental leave (two months of the current four-month leave will be paid at sick-leave rate) and grant parents the right to request flexible hours. 

Carers get five days of unpaid additional leave a year to support a sick relative.

In their statement, the lobbyists note that apart from the 10 days paternity leave, 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."

"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 - who will be contributors towards society and the welfare state."

€21.85 a day 'beyond unrealistic'

In real terms, they added, this translated 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 €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 that is as close as possible to the parents’ previous earnings, the groups said.

Instead, the government opted to offer a miserly rate: "a clear indication of how policymakers are out of touch with the realities of regular citizens".

Additionally, the transposition of the directive also failed to acknowledge that every birth was different and that fathers need to avail themselves of the utmost flexibility in their decision as to when to opt for the 10 days of paternity leave. 

And the legal notice bound parents to avail of their parental leave in established periods of at least two weeks.

It also restricted parents when it comes to paid leave, the groups lamented.

"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."

Authorities not giving caring its due importance

When it comes to the five days of unpaid caring leave, they said "the 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 care 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, they added.

"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.

This measure was especially disappointing for the lobbyists in view of the fact that in 2017 the government had launched a public consultation about paid leave for parents in the case of sick children, promising solutions.

This was never followed up and to date, this promise remains unfulfilled.

Additional maternity leave only for Maltese mothers

In this context, we should also not forget the foreign workforce, the groups said.

The additional four 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, they explained.

"Are we going to see the same discriminatory behaviour against sections of foreign working mothers played out again in this directive," they asked.

In the statement, the lobbyists also noted that the right to request flexible work, was, in itself, a positive concept. However, it stopped 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 eight 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."