Dear Editor,
Minister of Public Health, Dr George Norton and the Minister of Social Protection, Ms Volda Lawrence are very happy with the recent pronouncement with regard to the six-months maternity leave benefit for all working mothers which will bring Guyana in line with PAHO’s guidelines. This six-month exclusive breastfeeding will mean healthier children and mothers. This he says will also increase the productivity of women on their jobs. In fact more working mothers will be encouraged to breastfeed other than the meagre 23% currently doing so, according to a Unicef report. In addition, Minister Norton in November 2015 even went further and advocated that paternity leave be given to fathers in order to allow them to be involved in child care, to get a break from work, and to give their wives a break from child-rearing. Minister Lawrence is adamant that the six-months maternity leave should become law as early as next year. I am in total agreement with these benefits.
However, while the health benefits of this extended maternity leave are being extolled, there is the question of whether our fragile economy is ready for such a move. We know for a fact that the mere labelling of our economy as an upper middle income one does nothing to hide the fact that it is only the top 5-10% of people in this country who are actually enjoying the increased GDP. There is no doubt that great inequalities of income existing in Guyana and nearly 40% of our working population is unemployed, mostly youths. There is also no doubt that the private sector is currently experiencing a downward spiral, and needs sound financial policies in order to recuperate, not additional burdens, especially an increase in employment costs which in turn will push operational costs upward. Such increased costs will definitely erode the profit margins of businesses which may be forced to transfer those costs to consumers. Currently, the three months’ leave is financed by NIS and the employer.
In view of the increased economic costs, Dr Shamdeo, the country’s Chief Medical Officer, has warned that employers may not be willing to sign formal employment contracts with women. This would result in a lower female employment rate. Moreover, wage discrepancies may widen because of the seemingly additional burden of employing women.
Furthermore, apart from the actual increase in employment costs, employers will face the additional burden and costs associated with the training and development of substitute staff.
This will impact heavily on the private sector in areas such as manufacturing, wholesale and retail operations, hotels and restaurants.
In view of the foregoing, there is definitely a need to do a labour survey to ascertain the number of females who are employed in both the private and public sectors, the numbers who have given birth and who are actually breastfeeding their children, and make an assessment of what the estimated increase in employment costs will be ‒ ie, do the numbers. Having done so the government should set up a system whereby the wages of the persons on leave are financed by a public or privately funded scheme. This scheme will ensure that employees on six months’ maternity leave will receive their wages from such a fund. This scheme should be fully undertaken by the government not private businesses. Private business will already be bearing the costs associated with the decreased productivity of new employees and the associated costs of training and development. The creation of such a scheme will assist the employers who can then use the unspent wage bill to take on temporary staff to substitute for the mothers who are on six-months’ maternity leave.
But the big question here is whether all mothers will embark on this exclusive six-months’ breastfeeding programme when some young mothers feel that breastfeeding is taboo ‒ some of their reasons may be selfish. In my day I could vividly recall that my mother would be working in the fields and yet still be able to breastfeed me for nearly a year. This was the norm in those days and many hard working mothers nursed sometimes as many as 10 children.
Many mothers today might just enjoy the paid vacation with no regard for the numerous health benefits to the child and themselves.
Yours faithfully,
Haseef Yusuf
