There is no doubt that our country is doing well. The latest figures describe an economy which is punching well above its weight, while the major credit agencies are giving Malta its well-deserved positive verdict.

Our country is going through a veritable summer season, the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Record low unemployment figures, record high employment figures and record growth rates describe an economy which is revving on all cylinders. However, no summer is eternal, and one day the proverbial winter will come. 

And this basic economic truth weighs us with a responsibility we cannot shrug off.

It makes governments and civil society alike responsible to future-proof our economy and safeguard the hard-earned results we achieved together before we risk burning ourselves out in our own success.

It is in this context that, as a chamber, we are deeply troubled by the introduction of populist measures that seem to be primarily designed to pander to the lowest common denominators of our society with total disregard to the cost on the private sector and on the export competitiveness which is so crucial to our nation. 

By way of context, locally we have already been on a one-way, competitiveness-chipping street for some years now. 

Just to mention a few of the initiatives that the government has seen fit to introduce at the cost of the employer, we had the introduction of compensation for public holidays that fall on a weekend, a higher minimum wage bill and introduction of parental sick leave, among others.

I take full responsibility for my statement when I say that if the rate of increase in the cost of labour will continue to outpace that in productivity, we shall soon out-price ourselves to the competition and we will have to face the painful consequences.  

The matter of compensation for public holidays that fall on a weekend is still open, and employer organisations were asked by the government to discuss solutions on the eve of last year’s Budget. As responsible members of civil society we complied and delivered a list of options for the government’s consideration.

The government has the mandate to further the initiative, but is it intent on doing so at all costs in terms of competitiveness? 

Unfortunately, we don’t expect to find a listening ear in the EU about this issue. We are aware that there are political reasons in the background

Is the government intending to call on employer organisations at the eleventh hour again, in a bid to strong-arm them into an uncomfortable deal?

Meanwhile, we are faced with other populist ideas, this time coming from the European Commission, attempting to score brownie points with the public.

I am referring directly to the proposal for a directive about work-life balance. The directive intends to introduce carers leave, paternal leave, parental leave and an array of flexible working arrangements.

Just the latest installment in the steadfast obsession with the introduction of measures that result in workers spending more time at home while still getting paid. We cannot let ourselves get carried away by the current in this regard. The threat to competitiveness is too large. 

As a chamber we have always been in favour of decent and dignified working conditions, because a motivated workforce runs more efficiently and smoothly. In fact we are not against the introduction of measures that bring more work-life balance where these make sense. 

Yet we are deeply troubled by the European Union’s drive to legislate across the board and for all countries. This convenient, one-size-fits-all ap-proach has become too much of recurring theme, in fact.

We believe the EU should provide the overarching direction of the measures it would like to see implemented, but the specific countries should have full and unhindered freedom to pace themselves with regards to the extent of such measures.

We cannot be placed in the same basket with the likes of Scandinavian countries – it just doesn’t make any sense.

So, at this point, I ask: who will foot the bill for this? Who is going to be expected to pay for this burden? Because if this will be lumped on our businesses, we will certainly be giving our competitors the golden opportunity to step in and take away entire sectors we have worked hard to build.

Unfortunately, we don’t expect to find a listening ear in the EU about this issue. We are aware that there are political reasons in the background, and the EU is using this initiative to restore its precarious public image. 

We are also aware of how enticing this purely populist measure will appear to governments. But as all fellow entrepreneurs will attest, this should not be done at the cost of businesses. It will turn round to bite us, and ultimately it will be the economy that suffers. I do invite the upstanding members of our business community to pitch in with their thoughts on this subject.

As guardians of the country’s competitiveness, we must voice our concerns about this delicate issue till reason shall prevail.

Frank Farrugia is president of the Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry.