Seanad debates

Wednesday, 9 February 2005

Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill 2004: Committee Stage.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Frank FaheyFrank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Nothing I have heard from Senators Tuffy or O'Toole convinces me that a statutory obligation will do anything for flexibility. Good flexibility means good communication, common sense and a spirit of compromise. Statutory obligation imposes the exact opposite. In an era in which all the progressive companies in this country are being proactive on work-family life balance, it is unnecessary for us to legislate for this provision. If I honestly thought there was any advantage, I would consider the matter and I am prepared to consider it again, but I do not see the benefit in it. A proactive approach to the need to be flexible and respond to the demands of their employees is being taken by public sector employers. All the successful companies in the private sector will also be very positive about work-family life balance. If some companies are still stuck in the old mould, they will soon feel the impact on their bottom line. I do not want Senator O'Toole to get the impression that I am prepared to consider the matter again. I will consider it in extenuating circumstances where a statutory obligation could make a difference to flexibility. However, it could have the opposite effect; employers having to demonstrate the consequential negative impact could be a recipe for conflict. One would then be into dispute resolution and rights commissioners and so on in such a scenario.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.