The opposition Democratic Labour Party (DLP) has launched a fierce attack on the new Family Leave Act, warning that the legislation criminalises parents, regulates women’s reproductive health and puts the interests of employers ahead of families.
The law, tabled by Labour Minister Colin Jordan, has been hailed by the government as a landmark step for parental rights, creating statutory paternity leave for the first time in Barbados’ history. Fathers are now entitled to three weeks’ leave, which may be taken consecutively or split within the child’s first six months. Maternity leave has been extended from 12 to 14 weeks, or 17 weeks in the case of multiple births, and the maternity grant has been replaced with a gender-neutral child grant.
But at a Thursday night virtual discussion hosted by the DLP on the legislation, party representatives and legal experts argued that several provisions of the new law are not only inadequate, but “immoral”.
Malissa Howard, DLP candidate for Christ Church West Central, acknowledged that the introduction of paternity leave was an improvement on the Employment of Women (Maternity Leave) Act, which the Family Leave Act repeals. But she said the three-week period is “still behind when it comes to other countries”.
Giving her own perspective as a mother, she insisted that women need greater support. “You need your partner there for you at that period of time. So three weeks being available to the male is definitely not enough. I would say six months is adequate time for a male to be given time off from work.”
Opposition Senator Andre Worrell argued that fathers should be allowed leave beyond the immediate post-natal period, particularly when mothers return to work. He warned that without extended family support, parents are often forced to place infants in nurseries, which many seek to avoid in the first year.
He criticised the provision for fathers whose partners die during childbirth or confinement, which allows an additional three weeks of leave. “I would interpret that as the government saying ‘let me give these people something but really a little something’,” Sen. Worrell said. “If you wanted to do something … the father should be entitled to the equivalent amount of maternity leave.”
One of the most contentious elements of the law is section 15, which states that an employee who knowingly provides false information about a pregnancy or birth commits an offence punishable by a fine of up to $10 000 or 24 months’ imprisonment.
Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne said this amounted to the intrusion of criminal law into family life. He warned that the act undermines the “sacredness” of pregnancy and birth by treating it as a matter of contract and commerce. “Commerce and biology have met in this legislation and commerce is the victor,” he said.
Thorne further blasted the requirement in Sections 4 and 5 that both mothers and fathers must be employed continuously with their employer for at least 12 months before qualifying for family leave. He called it “immoral,” arguing that the law effectively dictates when women are “allowed” to become pregnant and unfairly penalises men, who “don’t get pregnant,” yet must also meet the same condition.
Attorney Damien Fanus pointed out that some women may not know they are pregnant until months into employment, leaving them ineligible for benefits under the law. “So then where does that leave you? That leaves you out to sea,” he said, accusing the legislation of running “counter not only to the biological and the medical needs of a woman” but also to the government’s own stated concerns about population growth.
Felicia Dujon, the party’s spokesperson for education, also attacked the legislation. “We have a State that wishes to regulate the reproductive health of women… it is a violation of their reproductive rights,” she said. “I think it’s very invasive that any government or any employer needs to know when a woman gets pregnant or not.”
Dujon also warned that the law could lead to workplace discrimination: “If you look like you’re in your reproductive era, chances are you may not be hired because you might have more than one pregnancy.”
Fanus further highlighted that protections against dismissal outlined in Section 9 only apply during leave itself, not after parents return to work. “There’s so many dichotomies and loopholes for the employer,” he said. “Then you have to [ask] yourself, who is this legislation for?” (SZB)
The post DLP slams family leave law as ‘immoral, employer-first’ appeared first on Barbados Today.
