Iceland MPs seek to end public employees’ special leave rights

Independence Party MPs Hildur Sverrisdóttir and Jens Garðar Helgason have submitted a bill proposing the abolition of public employees’ right to take up to five years of leave from their jobs when they are elected to Iceland’s parliament, mbl.is reports.

This is the second time the MPs have submitted the bill. They introduced it two years ago together with fellow Independence Party MPs Þórdís Kolbrún Reykfjörð Gylfadóttir and Vilhjálmur Árnason, who have since left parliament for other work.

The proposal would amend the law on parliamentary salaries and expenses. Under the current law, a member of parliament is entitled to leave from a public-sector job for up to five years. After the leave ends, the member also normally has priority for up to five years when applying for a comparable position in the public sector.

The bill’s explanatory statement says these rights apply only to public employees and not to people working in the broader labour market.

“There appear to be no compelling reasons for granting public employees these rights over other wage earners,” the statement says. Parliamentary terms usually last four years, while MPs’ salaries are above the average in Iceland’s labour market. Public employees who enter parliament therefore do not face any particular financial risk by serving as MPs, it says.

The sponsors also argue that MPs from the general labour market have no equivalent rights and that this has not created difficulties for them in taking seats in parliament.

Regarding priority for comparable positions, the statement notes that exceptions to the principle of hiring the most qualified candidate can be based on objective considerations. It cites the hiring of political assistants and priority for disabled applicants over non-disabled applicants as examples.

In this case, however, the MPs say the exception is not based on objective considerations that justify departing from the principle of merit. They argue that there are no compelling reasons for the special rights.

“Nothing indicates that abolishing these special rights would have negative consequences,” the statement concludes. It says the share of public employees in parliament could fall, which it describes as unlikely to be a disadvantage, and argues that parliament could instead benefit from greater representation of people with experience from the general labour market.