Editorial: Leave review must face up to reality

Public holidays, as the Minister of Labour observes, are for the common observance of days of national, religious or cultural significance. It is appropriate, therefore, that people required to work on such days should receive recognition for the fact that they have forgone a break that their fellow New Zealanders have enjoyed. The rationale of the Government's proposed changes to holiday legislation is presumably that this recognition is worth half a day's pay over and above an alternative day off.

That assumes, of course, that those who toil while others play actually feel deprived of company on that day. Many, in fact, might relish the thought of being able to relax without the press of holidaying humanity. For them, an alternative day off is a real bonus.

Nevertheless, holidays such as Christmas, Easter and anniversary weekends do have special significance and there is a measure of sacrifice for which employees may feel they should be compensated. Time and a half, in addition to an alternative day off, is more than many receive. They are paid ordinary time plus a day off in lieu. Employers will not want to see labour costs rise but seem to have bowed to the inevitable. In those circumstances it seems that time and a half is pitched fairly.

Unionists hoped to see that figure set as a minimum, thus allowing them to negotiate upward. The Government's announcement does not suggest this notion has been accepted. It is to be hoped that when the legislation reaches Parliament it remains so and public holidays attract time and a half and a day in lieu - full stop. The provision will be common to all workplaces (factories have in the past been afforded a special status) and that has the added virtue of simplicity.

The proposed changes represent a cooperative effort. They follow a joint employer-union advisory group review of public holidays, annual holidays and special leave. While both parties have in the course of the review jockeyed for position, the plan announced by Margaret Wilson suggests a measure of agreement.

The Labour Government has maintained a realistic attitude toward the entitlement to annual leave, which it says will remain at three weeks. While it has left the way open for the Alliance to push Parliament for an additional week's leave each year, the senior coalition partner understands the additional burden that such a provision would place on business. Put simply, the country cannot afford it.

Were productivity to rise significantly, an extra week at the beach might be a possibility. New Zealand does not have the annual growth to justify such a concession. Anything that reduces our competitiveness - and more holidays will add to labour costs - is to be avoided. It is a message that Labour understands in this instance, if not in some other areas of industrial law. And it can probably let the Alliance have its head in a small parliamentary display of differentiation, so long as Labour is part of a bloc vote against the amendment.

The other area where we can expect change is in special leave. Clarifying bereavement leave entitlement to allow three days' leave following the death of a close family member and one day for other forms of bereavement reflects what many would regard as nothing more than basic compassion.

The other area of special leave, however, may need a more hard-nosed attitude. Sick leave will remain at five days a year but with the new provision for it to accumulate to a maximum of 15 days. Small business, which would need to allow for such contingencies, will see that as just another cost burden with no demonstrable return. They, like their larger counterparts, may already have a jaundiced view.

Sick leave is supposed to be for genuine illness but some workers treat this "entitlement" like annual leave and build sick days into their planned recreation. Now they will have the option of accumulating sick leave over three years and then effectively doubling their holidays that year. They may be required to furnish a doctor's certificate but the inclusion of ill-defined "stress" in the panoply of occupational health and safety "injuries" provides a convenient malady that is even harder to deny than the traditional "bad back". It is another potential headache.