ok, here is some action which i think not many of us are aware
of:
An Honest Day's Pay for an Honest Day's Work?
By Sylvia Lim
Sylvia, Chairman of the Workers' Party, is a Law Lecturer and a
former police inspector
Singaporeans cannot afford to be arrogant these days. From being
one of the 4 Asian tigers of the 1990s, Singapore's economic growth
has been falling behind the rest of the developing Asian economies
since the Asian financial crisis in 1997 (M Bhaskaran, 2004).
Competition from low-cost countries who have built up capabilities
has forced painful restructuring of businesses in Singapore in
order to attract job-creating investments and to reduce off-shoring
of existing Singapore jobs.
Faced with pressures to reduce costs, businesses invariably look at
manpower costs. At the national level, policies have been changed
to reduce wage bills e.g. reversal of the decision to restore the
employers' Central Provident Fund contributions back to 20%,
discouraging seniority-based wages and promoting flexi-wages.
To what extent will pro-employer policies be pursued at the expense
of workers? Changes to the Employment Act passed by Parliament on
Sep 21, 2004, should raise alarm bells for Singapore workers.
What happened in Parliament
By the amendments, the Commissioner for Labour was given the power
to allow certain employers not to pay for extra work done by
non-executive workers earning not more than $1,600 per month. Such
extra work would include working overtime and working on rest days
and holidays. Prior to the changes, such employees were statutorily
protected under the Employment Act when they did extra work, being
entitled to be paid not just their basic hourly pay but also 1.5 to
2 times their basic pay. The recent amendments are so wide that it
is likely that, with the Commissioner's approval, the worker may
receive no pay at all for the extra work done.
In moving the amendments, Acting Minister for Manpower told MPs
that employers needed flexibility to deploy their work force.
According to him, business cycles would mean there would be busy
periods and lull periods. Therefore, employers should be allowed to
give workers time-off during lull periods and, correspondingly,
extra work done during busy periods would not be paid but would be
compensated by time off during lull periods. The purpose of this
restructure, as is the often-cited purpose in Singapore for any
wage restructure, is to save jobs.
In exercising his power under the amended Section 41A of the
Employment Act, the Commissioner for Labour will exempt employers
from paying workers for extra work after considering "the
operational needs of the employer and the interests of
workers".
In opposing the amendments, Workers' Party Secretary-General and MP
for Hougang Low Thia Khiang highlighted that the change would have
the effect of removing protections for the low wage earners who had
the weakest bargaining power with their employers, particularly in
this lacklustre job market. Instead of having the law to safeguard
them, the amendment would expose them to exploitation.
Impossible task for Commissioner for Labour
As businesses are generally run to derive maximum returns for
shareholders, many employers would guarantee their employees only
the minimum required under the law. Now that the law has allowed
the Commissioner to grant exemptions, it is certain that employers
would want to put up cases for exemption.
How will the Commissioner perform this virtually impossible task of
excusing employers from paying employees, and say that it is for
the employees' own good? The justification will probably come down
to one of employers' costs. If the wage bill eats into the
employer's profits, such that retrenchments are an option the
employer is considering, then the Commissioner may exempt the
employer from paying employees for extra work in order to forestall
the retrenchments.
What severity of employer's "operational needs" would justify the
Commissioner's exemption of employers? Would it be just to ensure
the company breaks even, or to ensure that profitable companies
keep up their profit margins to maximise shareholder's returns?
Singapore has already seen pre-emptive retrenchments in profitable
government-linked companies such as the PSA (Port of Singapore
Authority), which were supported by the government as necessary
moves. There is hence no assurance that, after all the pain of
working extra for free, the worker's job is secure.
How the worker will be affected
Arguments that the worker will be compensated with time-off in lieu
of pay are little comfort to him due to the heavy price he will
have to pay.
First, he may be required to work longer hours within a working day
or week, for no extra pay. For instance, he may be required to work
for longer than 8 or 9 hours per day, or longer than 44 hours per
week. Secondly, he may be required to work on rest days or on
holidays, for no pay.
Prior to the changes, workers working extra hours sacrificed rest,
and family and social life, because they were assured of
supplementary income. Now, they may be required to do extra work
for no pay, to be compensated by time-off, which will probably be
given at a time of the employer's choosing. The time-off could be
given even several months down the road.
On the other hand, there may also be workers who hold a second job
due to the low wages they earn in the first job. By impinging on
their time after work and on rest days / holidays, their ability to
earn extra income will be curtailed. This could be dire for some
families.
It is interesting to note here that, according to the Labour Force
Survey Report 2003 (Ministry of Manpower), the average working
hours for the poorly educated was higher (51 hours per week) than
the national average (49 hours). The Report attributed this to the
fact that more hours had to be put in to earn a living for the less
educated (and presumably, poorer paid). Cleaners, labourers and
related workers worked an average of 58 hours per week, with the
average for female workers in this category being 62.3 hours per
week.
Some might argue that the worker could always leave for a more
scrupulous employer if things got too bad. If jobs were in
abundance, probably so, but a lot would depend on prevailing market
conditions and the mobility of the particular worker.
In the current employers' labour market where good jobs are not
easy to come by, many workers may not be able to be choosers. Two
days after the changes were passed in Parliament, the local media
highlighted the outsourcing of jobs by SATS (Singapore Airport
Terminal Services, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines). A cleaner
earning $1,400 per month whose job was outsourced told the media
that she had been offered the same job by the new contractor for
less than $1,000 per month and had to take it because she needed
the job to support a child.
