For a young expectant mother, who already has a daughter, the news of government’s plan to increase maternity leave from three months to six months sounded like sweet music to her ear, but soon reality stepped in and she immediately thought about the country’s economy and the affordability of such a move.
“It would definitely be better for me and I would look forward to spending more time with my baby,” the young mother immediately said when approached by the Sunday Stabroek.
It was hard when she had to leave her infant daughter at just three months old “with strangers” as she earned a living.
She said with that six months’ maternity leave she would be able to bond better with her next child but then she said something may make women in her position give her a quizzical look.
“But I don’t think we’re ready for it. I know it would be beneficial for mothers and their children but our economy cannot afford it right now,” said the woman who works in an area where she deals with businesses on a daily basis.
Her sentiment is shared by several in the private sector but others believe it is a move the country should make because it would benefit women. Minister of Social Protection Volda Lawrence was the first government official to bring the issue to the public’s attention, but more recently her colleague Minister of Public Health Dr George Norton gave the impression that the administration has serious intent to go in that direction. He indicated that he would soon be spearheading the drafting of legislation to make this a reality and underscored the importance of exclusive breastfeeding for babies.
The minister pointed out that because most mothers are forced to return to work three months after giving birth they are unable to exclusively breastfeed their babies.
Since the announcement many have said the move is a good one for women and pointed out that many Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, have already introduced same. Only last year India made changes to its legislation to facilitate the six-month maternity leave, while in Canada women can have up to one year at home with their children.
But some have pointed out that while this is all good, those countries’ economies are much stronger than Guyana’s and as such can afford such a move.
The young pregnant mother to whom this newspaper spoke, noted that many companies would be unable to pay an employee for six months and in many instances they would have to hire temporary staff to cushion the effect of the absence and in the end “will be paying two salaries.”
“And how do you tell a worker after six months they have to go… it might be another woman who has to suffer,” she pointed out.
Vice President of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) Desmond Sears and President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) Vishnu Doerga have both stated that Guyana’s economy cannot afford to give women six months’ maternity leave. They also indicated that the issue would have to be addressed at their respective business bodies.
“Can the private sector first of all afford such a move? [On the surface] I don’t take so,” Doerga told this newspaper in a recent interview.
He pointed out that an additional cost to the organization would be added as it relates to redundancy since the work needs to go on in an employee’s absence. He said while most businesses would have redundancy methods in place to cushion the present three months’ maternity leave new measures would now have be introduced to address the proposed six months.
Sears pointed out that six months is a lengthy period for an employee to be off of work and it will cost any company.
‘Gimmick’
Karen de Souza of Red Thread, in an invited comment, said that six months maternity leave sounds like a “progressive thing to do” she believes that it is another “gimmick” by the government.
She pointed out that there are other more pressing issues affecting women that need to be addressed, noting that in Guyana’s context there are state agencies and some private agencies that actually penalise women for pregnancy.
She also stated that there is the issue of the state insisting that the treasury cannot sustain a living wage to public employees and also the fact that day care facilities are woefully inadequate. The present three months’ maternity leave, she said, is also not being enforced in the private sector.
“This proposal sounds like a lie, a gimmick, not to be taken seriously,” she posited.
Human rights activist Sherlina Nageer also sees the proposed six months’ maternity leave as a progressive move and while she agrees that it may take a toll on the economy she is of the opinion that “sometimes when we want things we have to pay for it.”
She pointed out that women make up about 50% of Guyana’s society and while this may not equate to the workforce, any measure that can support women, “I would support.” She knows that prices may have to go up and profits may go down if this is introduced, but she is of the view that [we] should “put our money where our mouths are and support policies that would move society forward.”
But she stated also that if the government really want to support women then it should pay for birth control for them and also for the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
‘Balance’
Sears is of the opinion that the fact the country’s economy is fragile there needs to be a balance and the three months’ maternity leave should remain instead of introducing six.
He also called for a study to be done to see how feasible such a move is. He pointed out that in some Scandinavian countries there was the need to increase the population as professional women were not prepared to have children as they climbed the professional ladder and the longer maternity leave was given as an incentive. There are also cases where women went back to work two weeks after they gave birth.
He once again underscored the need for a study to be done on the issue while adding it is definitely an issue he would bring up at the PSC level as the policy would impact on businesses.
The commission, he said, would have to meet with the Ministry of Social Protection to discuss the issue as such a move should not be taken by the government without first talking with the business sector.
Doerga, in further comments, zeroing in on the statement that this is being done in other countries pointed out that the Scandinavian countries’ working hours are 30 to sometimes 35 hours a week so “can we also say well it is happening here let us also move to 32 hours [but] given as we know already that our productivity levels are already low.”
“It comes back to productivity if we don’t have high productivity how would we ever compete and then some of the measures that we are pushing as well drop our productivity and increase our cost,” he said.
Doerga said the issue has come to the attention of the GCCI which would examine the impact such a move would have on the private sector.
“When we talk about competitive…, [it] means either we add more value or we can charge more or we reduce our cost. Whenever measures come in that increase our cost it is always a cause for concern,” Doerga said.
He added that while they understand the positive effect such a move would have on women and their babies and even the need for it, they would have to examine how they can offset it in the private sector.
Like Sears, Doerga said there would be need for research on the issue and a solution that is worthwhile for all parties must be found.
