THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM somewhat disturbed over the apparent misunderstanding of the true facts surrounding the proposal to introduce a flexi-work week. The misunderstanding, for whatever reason, seems to rest on the perception that the Government, supported by the employers, intends to enact legislation to compel persons to work on Saturdays and Sundays and possibly seven days per week, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to attend divine services.
The fact is, no such legislation is planned. Incidentally, the proposed change is supported by the trade unions represented on the Labour Advisory Committee. Good for them. At present certain Minimum Wage Orders, e.g. Garment Industry, state that the 40-hour work week shall be worked over five days and if the employee works more than eight hours on any of those days, irrespective of whether 40 hours are worked weekly, he/she must receive overtime pay on those days.
The proposed amendment of the Orders seeks to say that overtime is to be paid after 40 hours worked on any number of days during the work week and not after eight hours. The maximum daily hours during which the employer may require the employee to work is to be 10, which may be extended to 12 by agreement. This is to ensure that the employee is not required to work unduly long hours to the detriment of his/her health. A logical work week could therefore be over four days of 10 hours daily, with the employee being free on the fifth day either to be with his family, seek additional work to supplement the pay packet or attend church if he so desires. There are other variants, e.g. working 80 hours over two weeks, say, five days of eight hours one week and four days of 10 hours the second week, and so on. That is where the flexibility comes in.
What is generally known, but not talked about, is that at present thousands of persons are legally employed under existing legislation to work on Saturdays and Sundays in, e.g. bauxite, tourism, transport services including electricity, etc. An exception are those working in dry goods stores, the opening of which on Sundays is illegal under the Towns and communities Act. This is an old Act which talks about selling ice, bread and fodder for animals on Sundays.
It is a fact that some of the above workers receive premium pay for work on those days, except where they are on shifts.
It would be a matter of principle, therefore, for us to call for a discontinuance of Sunday and Saturday work in the above industries as it limits the ability of persons to attend church or enjoy the fellowship of family life, but can we do so and thereby endanger the economy of the country? Certainly not. Don't for one moment think that I am knocking religious service or family fellowship, since it is my firm belief that such activity goes a far way towards reducing the incidence of violent crime in the community.
The proposed amendment of the Orders would have no effect on the pattern of work in the industries mentioned, except in so far as the payment of daily overtime is concerned. Is it the overtime aspect which is the overriding factor in the minds of some in the case against the flexi-work week?
The other factor which must be considered is the fact that no employer in his right mind is suddenly going to change his work week to include Saturday and Sunday unless he is sure that such a move would be profitable. Remember, he can still operate a five-day week if he finds this more financially rewarding and efficient. To my mind, a change would possibly only occur where he feels the introduction of an extra shift would make sense. From the social point of view an extra shift would result in additional employment and more earthly bread on the table.
I should add that under the proposed change, it would be permissible for an arrangement to be made, where desired, so that the Saturday worshipper works on Sunday and vice versa if he is required to work on those days at all. Another approach could be to roster the employee for work on alternate weekends.
I could perhaps understand the objection of some workers who now earn overtime on a daily basis, but this must be balanced against the changes in global work patterns and the implications of global competition and trade policies particularly amongst trading "partners", irrespective of any view that such is not beneficial to developing nations.
What is it to be then? Stick with the old order and possibly face loss of business and redundancy, or move with the times even though we do not take kindly to change? Of course, a change to flexi-work week will not, by itself, bring about the desired prosperity, but it is a part of the larger scheme of things and we have to make the move. We cannot sit around waiting for everything to be in place before we take that step. The reduction of crime with its effects on business, improvement in the infrastructure, retooling, etc., may take time and time is not on our side.
I am, etc.,
S.G. KIRKALDY, C.D.
Kingston 8
