One of the first actions taken by the new Colander Coalition Government this term was presenting a motion regarding a draft of a statutory instrument. This instrument would create paid menstrual leave. While the motion has received praise from Conservatives, one has to wonder as to why. Members of Solidarity and the Liberal Democrats both voiced concerns surrounding both the wording of the draft as well as the concept of Menstrual Leave itself. Liberal Democrat leader Rickcall123 had this to say:

While I'm sure the author/s of this motion had good intentions, and while I recognise that periods are not a great time for many people. I don't believe giving mandatory sick leave for menstruation would be a good avenue for this country, and I fear could result in seeing mass unemployment for our women workers. I'll be opposing this motion for this reason.

I and some friends decided to do a deeper dive on the costings of this proposal, partially prompted by this comment, but also by the inexplicable defense of not costing this motion by the Deputy Prime Minister. To quote him:

financially this is basically an extension of the status quo - with the only difference being that employers simply just have to carry on paying these women why they are at home for those few days of menstrual leave - it seems apparent to me that there should be no cost to the state. The very nature of these measures seek to ensure that there is no change to the rate of pay for these women - so with no change, there should be no cost.

A truly brave statement from the Chancellor, and one we wanted to examine in more depth.

First off, while it is of course illegal, it cannot be denied that gender discrimination in employment continues to occur, and that this leave would offer further financial disincentive to hire women. Many may scoff at this, but the financial cost of this policy far exceeds what many would perhaps assume. I will use the public sector as a case study, as that is the bill that the Government will have to pay if they pursue this policy, and it would be most dishonest to not include it in the budget.

Working with the assumptions of 5 days a month, 60 days a year, knowing that women make up 65% of the public sector workforce and supposing they work 20 days per month on average, we get the following results.

They can get up to five days off per month of paid leave. That is 16.25% of the public sector's labour hours possibly gone overnight. A sixth of all work hours in the public sector would be gone. Around 3.61 million people work in the public sector, meaning you would need up to 700,000 more workers to make up the shortfall, during a labour shortage no less! The Chancellor may wish to write this all off and insist the men will shoulder the burden for them to enjoy their deserved rest. While this is a rosy view, it is not a realistic one. Where are the labor hours that will be needed to stop the entire apparatus of state from grinding to a halt?

When we get into costing, things get even grimmer. Working with the average weekly wage in the public sector of 600 pounds, and costing the extra 700k workers pay, we come to a simple equation:

(4.31(Millions of workers needed) - 3.61(Millions of workers currently employed)) * (52(Weeks in a year)*600(Average weekly pay)) = 21,840,000,000

That is 21.84 billion pounds per year just in public sector wages the Chancellor is trying to sweep under the rug! Yet it gets even worse when one accounts for payment into Pension funds and the employer covered portion of income tax. The former represents about 15% a year (varying between jobs, some higher some lower), the latter 15%. So by then multiplying the previous total to include those we get a final total of: £28,392,000,000 per year! This assumes all women are taking full advantage of this leave, but the Chancellor made it clear they intend for women to use it, so it is a fair assumption. And this is only the central government, think of these costs extended across local governments and every workplace in Britain.

I agree we need to stand with women workers, but I believe this policy will only harm them in the workforce on the larger scale. The Government must at the very least address the costing of this measure, and if they think filling this work hour gap is feasible in a labour shortage. I would argue it is not, spots will be left unfilled, but perhaps the Colander Coalition has thought this through and has a plan for this. I would be surprised, but life is full of surprises.