“The
latest Ministry of Manpower survey on some 3,600 private sector
establishments earlier this year found that only 2.8 per cent of
the establishments with employees aged 60 and above” practise wage
cuts for employees who reach the age of 60. (MOM)
The results of such a survey first and foremost would be
dubious, for the following reasons:
How likely is it for an employer to say yes to a question asking
whether they cut the wages of workers when they reach 60 years old,
especially when such a question is asked by MOM?
Employers who have cut older workers’ wages even before they
reach 60, may also simply answer no to the question.
Employers can also let older workers go even before they reach
60, as the employer is almost at liberty to do so using various
reasons, so long as age was not given as the actual reason.
That aside, lets look at three simple yet contradicting set of
numbers from three different parties with regards to the number of
older workers whose wages are cut when they reach 60-years old.
As mentioned above, the MOM survey says “only 2.8 per cent” of
private sector companies do so.
The NTUC’s estimate, however, puts the figure at about 80 per
cent of unionised companies. (Asia
One)
The Public Service Division says “a good majority do not get
such a cut” – which could mean that as many as 49 per cent of these
workers do see reductions in pay when they turn 60.
So, I am really quite confused, as the MOM says less than 3 per
cent, NTUC said about 80 per cent, and the Public Service
Commission said “a good majority”.
Perhaps what Singapore needs is an Equal Opportunities
Commission like Hong Kong’s, which handled 20,852 enquiries and
1,230 complaints in 2009.
Cutting wages is but one aspect of the problems that older
workers face. Another is re-employment when they reach their
retirement age.
According to a Channel NewsAsia report, “15% of private
companies with re-hire policy for staff at 62 didn’t offer
re-employment.” (Channel
News Asia, Jun 4)
Also: “15 per cent of private companies with re-employment
policy did not offer to re-hire local employees when they reach
62.”
Since 15 per cent of companies with a re-employment policy said
they had not offered to keep workers past 62 (“Most bosses keep
workers beyond 62”, ST, Jun 5), how can these companies be
classified as having a re-employment policy when no one was offered
re-employment?
Also, 36.4 per cent of companies don’t even allow employees to
work beyond 62, and four in ten of those that do offer
re-employment did not even bother to consult workers approaching
62.
I was surprised that the top reason given by employers, at 81.3
per cent, given for why retirees were not offered a job when they
reached retirement age, was: “No suitable job available”.
Are employers saying that the job held by an employee when he
or she reaches retirement age was not a “suitable” job in the first
place?
As to the top reason, at 68.4 per cent, given for why some
companies have no re-employment policies, the reason was: “No
worker nearing 62″. Is this not an indication that many employers
don’t employ older workers?
Considering all the above, I think we may be overly optimistic
and complacent by drawing the conclusion that the overall result of
the report was that most bosses are convinced of the need to
re-employ their workers.
With the current CPF Minimum Sum payout draw-down age already
extended to 65 and CPF Life retaining the CPF Minimum Sum
(currently $123,000) and the Medisave Required Amount (currently
$22,500) at age 55, to pay a monthly life annuity from age 65, how
will workers who are not offered comparable re-employment at age 62
survive, if they do have enough funds from 62 to 65?
———–