Talking Point

The Purpose

The bill is to tackle two issues: to detail how employment tribunal's members may be appointed or dismissed; and include staff of several core industries as beneficiaries of the regime of rights provided in chapter four of the employment legislation.

They are those staff at resorts, emergency services, ports, airports, industrial islands, and executive positions.

If the proposed amendment is successful, staff in those core industries would have all the chapter four rights available to them, with an exception of three rules: 48 hour weeks without overtime; 30 minute breaks after every five hours; and 15 minute breaks during prayer times or 15 minute breaks every four hours.

The proposed exception is a subject of contention amongst workers on the one side and employers on the other side.

Already some 5000 staff on resorts had sent in a petition stating their concerns.

The work force on Maldives resorts is estimated to total some 25,000. They insist that they should receive all benefits of chapter four. They prefer the 48 hour working week to remain.

The Contention

While it is, no doubt, legitimate to claim the benefit of the 48 hour working weeks across the board, the rule is seen by many employers to be seriously destructive to their trade and business, and ultimately to the economy of the country.

The employers contest that a ceiling on the working week has been set taking only civil servants into account.

A simple scenario where the 48 hour rule may be difficult to implement is explained by an entrepreneur as follows:

Resorts

Resorts, by rule, have a built up area of 20 per cent. All resort facilities including staff accommodation are included within the built up area. Staff to guest ratio is designed taking into account several factors: bed capacity, limitations on the built up areas, style of resort, market; lease rental; and operational costs.

If after eight hours, a shift ends, to keep to a six day or 48 hour working week, the staff strength on resorts has to be tripled to comply with the rule. This would in return cause staff to be recruited more than guests can be accommodated on an island sending overhead costs haywire.

Safaris

A safari boat normally has three to four cabins for staff and six to eight cabins for guests. If in the middle of an excursion, if a staff retires for the day, after completing his eight hours, the trip could collapse. Plus, there would be no way staff can be increased by a safari vessel to accommodate employees working eight hour shifts only.

He also mentioned the story of sundry shops and corner shops. Their overheads would limit staff enrolment to two or three assistants maximum. If there is a rule of eight hour days and 48 hour work weeks, those shops would have to close down.

Construction

How about the construction workers, he went on. A construction worker's time for the day may be up while concrete is still being made and is still a while away from being poured. If work has to be stopped to keep to the rule there is no way work in the construction industry could progress as the nature of their work may require certain people to continue to work in excess of the eight hour days.

Shops

Some other friends in business also have asked me to think of the importance of maintaining the 'competitive edge', to ensure our economy is at work, and avoiding the destructive cycle we can all get into with the launch of a statutory limitation on working weeks with or without overtime payment options.

It must be noted here that working week of 48 hours is set in the law as the maximum hours a person could be subject to work without paying overtime.

The Fear

The fear of the employers is compounded by the fact that there is no way an employee can be forced to put in extra hours, if he does not want to work overtime. They say overtime is an issue by itself, but is not the entire issue. Their fear is the absolute nature of the right and the adverse impact it can have on the business or trade of the employer, where a worker refuses to work overtime.

The entrepreneurs argue like this: issue of overtime payment arises only if a staff member is interested in working beyond his number of hours every day, which cannot be more than eight hours, if there has to be six working day weeks or 48 working hour weeks. The right to refuse to work beyond those limited number of hours is a right guaranteed by law. Neither can such a limitation be circumvented, nor can work beyond limited hours be forced upon an employee.

The Cap

They argue that the entire controversy is due to the statutory creation of a 48 hour week as a rule. It should have been left, they say, to be dealt with as a matter of contract, depending on the nature of industry involved.

They also say that, it may be wiser to put an all inclusive cap, on the number of hours a human being can be subject to work in any industry or profession, even with the payment of overtime or other monetary benefits. They say that would be better than creating a work week rule of 48 hours.

The Balance

While one can appreciate the concerns of those employers, and the need to find alternatives, it must also be understood that the employment law comes to provide rights for the employee rather than to protect the interests of the employer.

Although a balance is difficult to achieve between human rights on the one side, and industry rights on the other, it is important that an attempt be made to find a workable compromise where workers do not feel subjected to undue hardship, and employers are not subjected to undue pressure.

That is where employers and workers must be prepared to give up their ideal circumstances, and be content with a bargain workable for both sides of the argument.