The push for paternity leave is gaining steam across the country. And I have read in the media that various politicians and friends have expressed their support for the proposal in the name of family values.
In principle I am happy with the idea that new fathers take time off to be with their babies. You wish to, great, have at it! What I’m not happy about and resolutely oppose is any idea that it must be imposed upon everybody. After all, no one insists that a new mother must take all of the maternity leave to which she is entitled.
Besides, we all don’t know whether fathers on paid paternity leave really help change the baby’s soiled nappies, help prepare the infant formula, or help the new mother have plenty of rest.
They could end up watching TV all day because they find that bawling babies and changing nappies are not really their thing. This is a problem because they can choose among the options available to them according to their estimations of their own interest.
Biologically, women need some time off to recover from childbirth and care for their newborn. To many employers, the current three months maternity leave is simply too inconvenient and ultimately hurts their businesses. If men want a break or an extended break, shouldn’t they
negotiate a deal with their employers?
There are some people who ask why paternity leave hasn’t been legislated. They are mistaken. In reality, many workers that I know of have some sort of paternity leave although it is not exactly known as paternity leave. This practice indicates that employers are responsive to workers’ demands. What we don’t have is paid paternity leave mandated by law. Yet it makes no more sense to conclude from the absence of government-mandated paid paternity leave that no one have it than to conclude from the absence of government-mandated dinner that no one eats dinner.
If there truly is widespread support for paid paternity leave given its costs, employers would have every incentive to allow more of their workers to take such leave. The fact that the leave is not given to more workers is the best evidence that support for such leave is not as widespread as many of us assumes.
What must be learned is whether or not those who receive some benefits are willing to pay the cost of receiving them. If they aren’t willing to pay that cost, then these people don’t really want the benefits.
If there is an option, but workers don’t take it, then it can’t be said that workers opt or don’t opt for something because of restrictions.
Let’s say a politician whines about some leave arrangements. As Edmund Burke pointed out, we elect a specific individual whose judgment we trust to govern for us. If the politician goes then there’s another election to select another specific individual which is why there is no such thing as maternity or paternity leave paid by taxpayers. It is because we’re talking about an individual being a mum or dad.
What happens if election is called in the middle of a maternity or paternity leave? Do we not have an election in a constituency where the incumbent is on maternity or paternity leave?
That’s tough isn’t it? What does a politician think should be the arrangements for an MP on maternity or paternity leave in the event of an election? For every argument, the politician would talk about how unfair the current system is. So, what should the system be?
Some people don’t like this arrangement and we shouldn’t like it, but if that’s what free people decide to do with their lives then who are we to disallow or change what they are doing?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New Sarawak Tribune.
