Orville Taylor | Paternity leave again

My child would have been 31 years old now had the Government decided to implement some of the recommendations I made regarding the importance of paternity leave. It is uncertain if Minister of Finance and Public Service Dr Nigel Clarke had conversations with Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck; because it looks like he has made a complete 180-degree turn and about-faced on behalf of the Government regarding paternity leave.

About two years ago, Chuck was conditionally supportive of its introduction, asserting that unless the father/applicant for the leave was co-residential with the mother; he should not get it. Of course, that flew in the face of the majority of Jamaican voters, because living with the mother is not correlated to support or commitment as one thinks. Indeed, Clarke is a mathematician and understands numbers. However, human behaviour does not follow arithmetic formulae or timelines for that matter. Clearly, given all of the excitement in the public sector, with air traffic controllers, and National Water Commission and the disgruntlement among the police and teachers, the minister must be on a tight timeline. Yet, haste does make waste, because paternity leave was an item of claim from the public sector union. A cardinal principle in labour management relations that the finance minister may very well learn the hard way is that ‘nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed’.

Announced last week that the Government would be implementing this long-overdue term and condition in the contracts of public sector employees, though commendable, needed to have been publicised after all the collective bargaining items have been settled. That is the tradition established by the party built by trade unionist Alexander Bustamante and steered for decades by the labour core. One should never forget that the entire framework of Jamaican politics and governance is built on the unionist paradigm.

MILES TO CROSS

Whatever might be the strategy of the finance minister in these negotiations, there are miles still to cross. Many groups in the public sector are festering and I have received a number of emails, which clearly indicate that his targeted conclusion date may ultimately elude him. In any bargaining process, the question will be asked as to what will the workers be giving up in order to get this new benefit?

In a world where single-digits increases, usually hovering below five per cent, are the norm, the expectation is that the Government shall be offering pretty much a freeze on wages, in real terms. Therefore, the unions have to find more creative ways to cushion the cost-of-living pressure when it comes later.

What I want to see is a migration away from the ‘welfare’ concept of labour relations, towards a paradigm of social protection and decent work. People who sweat to generate a profit for employers, or to make a minister/government look good, are not mendicants. They are persons who have built up equity and thus have earned to right to be taken care off when their service either ends or takes a break.

Two critical areas that have to be implemented is post-service healthcare for public servants, akin to what they currently have. It is shameful that members of parliament, who have no limits on their retirement age, legislate the 60s retirement of their public servants and then enjoy decent pensions, while the career civil servants fall off the cliff when they are ushered out. Both parties in Parliament have betrayed their workers in not establishing liveable pensions for their workers.

This failure to provide for its backbone workers is a major indictment on our governance since 1944 when our two trade union parties became the second democratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere.

SECOND LOOK

Beyond that, the Government must take a second look at its suspension/interdiction policies. I will return to this subject in another article, but it strikes me as inhumane to punish workers prior to their being convicted. Being suspended on a premise that a worker must face charges/internally or externally, and then deny them salary is in my considered opinion cruel and vindictive punishment. At last count there were around 80 police officers on suspension without pay. Someone needs to tell Government that the action taken against these workers do not only affect them and their families. Rather, it has a major impact on the overall morale of the current colleagues.

It is also very discriminatory and I bet, unconstitutional, that police officers do not have access to legal aid, when accused scammers and multiple murderers can have the Government footing their legal fees. When these areas of injustice are addressed, then we can do more.

As for the paternity leave, the current Maternity Leave Act applies to public and private sector workers, but the Holiday with Pay Order does not. Let’s see if the labour minister follow suit. Most Jamaican workers are not public servants.

Finally, I have a simple expression, “My dentist must not have halitosis; and my mechanic’s car must not be a ‘salad’!” Trade unions themselves do not have the best terms of employment for their very own officers. Moreover, their pension and post-retirement schemes are embarrassingly inadequate.

So, what do you expect?

Dr Orville Taylor is head of the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.