Former Sen. Pafilo Lacson on Sunday said the proposed paid menstrual leave may have unintended consequences and might do “more harm than good.”
“A proposal for a paid menstrual leave may do more harm than good to the ordinary working woman whose rights it is supposed to uphold,” Lacson said.
He pointed out that the economic implications of such leave may lead to layoffs or even the closing of some factories whose owners do not have the budget for it.
“Instead of benefiting the female workforce in general, it may have a negative effect on the economic and political stability of the country,” he said.
“What the proponents of the two-day-a-month menstrual-leave-with-pay measure and the ordinary working woman in this country may not realize is the impact of an additional 24 days a year of leave with pay,” Lacson said.
He said this is on top of the 105 days of maternity leave, 7 days of paternity leave, and 5 days of sick leave.
“Also included here is the 13 to 18 days of vacation leave every year (convertible to cash if unused) which could lead to layoffs or even the closing of some factories that may not have the wherewithal to cope with the burden of complying with all these privileges,” he added.
Lacson noted that while he is all for upholding the rights of women, there are other ways to do this without causing joblessness.
He added that while the bill may be music to the ears, the harsh reality is that it may discourage long-term investments by prospective employers.
“It is good to be perceived as pro-labor, especially among the 49% women population,” Lacson said.
However, Lacson aaid we should also take into consideration the long-term effect on the country’s investment climate in particular and the economy in general.
“We should look at the forest, not the trees,” he added.