NEW SOCIAL paradigms over the past half a century have placed more mothers in the workplace, forcing governments and employers to re-examine policies as they relate to making for a more productive environment for all stakeholders.
When the Michael Manley-led administration of the 1970s introduced laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave as part of a raft of social reform legislation, it was seen, on the one hand, as a breakthrough in social policy while stirring, on the other hand, an intense debate about the cost to the productive process. The arguments have merely simmered since then.
Now, proposals from Tony Blair's Labour Government in England have reignited the debate this time as it relates to paternity leave.
In yesterday's edition of The Gleaner, we published differing views on the subject, indicative that the issue is gaining currency locally, although there has been no specific proposal from the Government.
At the heart of the proposals in England, Australia and elsewhere is a recognition of significant changes in the structure of modern families and how they function.
Britain's Trade and Industry Secretary, Stephen Byers, justified the proposals in a Green Paper first presented in 2001, saying the measures would help parents cope with "the heavy demands" of raising children and working.
In fact a 2002 study on the value of paid maternity and paternity leave in Australia noted that more and more women and men are struggling with having to combine the responsibilities to their work and their families. The convergence of the demands of biology and economic security means that many of today's families are faced with bringing up children at the same time that they are paying off high mortgages or establishing themselves in increasingly competitive workplaces. It has been argued with some merit, that a woman's ability to spend at least the first two months after giving birth with her child has enabled her to return to work in a better frame of mind and therefore more likely to perform better on the job.
It must be noted however that these guarantees to working mothers are not without costs. Employers operating on thin margins, have had to perform delicate balancing acts in observing the law and implementing family-friendly policies while maintaining production and efficiency.
Clearly, a father's presence in the home should be of some value to a child and its mother but there is no guarantee that men who opt for and are paid for paternity leave would necessarily be any more responsible as fathers. Given many Jamaican men's propensity to find ways to beat the system and our proclivities for fathering children, it may just provide another avenue for anancyism.
A few employers may yet find themselves with the daunting prospect of granting paternity leave to the same individual several times in the year.
Should we be minded to adopt similar legislation as in England, we suggest a careful study and debate be done before enactment.
