Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Dilemma of contract workers

The employer is able to impose different working conditions for contract workers

The law on employment should be changed to treat contract workers fairly.


C H Yak said...

I find it quite ridiculous, when a PAP NTUC MP was interviewed on TV and he spoke about the differences between "contract for services" in the case of SMRT China Drivers vs "permanent employment contracts" in the case of Malaysian / S'porean Drivers, to justify the wage differentials.

Remember how NTUC went the "tough way" to campaign for "wage re-structuring" after previous crisis...pointing out "pre-emptive lay-offs" were inevitable for older workers over 40 years old getting redundant...

If "contract for service" is the way, why should it be actually "cheaper" than "permanent employment contracts" ... in terms of real costs...especially if we say the wages of China drivers and Malaysian drivers are on par. Employers saves in the longer run (say no need to pay retrenchment benefits for layoffs etc), but that does not imply the real wages should be lower in the short-run. In fact, it should be "higher" because the "uncertainty" burden is on the workers.

Imagine the problem get compounded with wages for the lowly paid when it gets compressed at the lower end ...

Lye Khuen Way said...

NTUC is getting irrelevant as far as representing workers in Singapore.

It is more than just a front for the ruling party to get involved in supermarkets/ taxi operations, insurance, child-care and some.

TK goh said...

A contract worker work for a specific salary with the agreed terms of employment before commemcement. As for "Contract for Service" the worker is paid a sum of money like self employed.

C H Yak said...

@"NTUC is getting irrelevant as far as representing workers in Singapore."

LOL...especially when u do not stick to "core competence" just like SMRT under Ms SPH.

To sustain you need to stick to the "basics" which must become "core competences" and for a could not deviate from "talking or organising strikes" ????1111???*** lol and even if not that, then "how to raise and improve wage levels"...not clubhouses or supermarkets...or even sell Insurance especially if it does not stay as a co-operative but take to the market.

Talk about EVOLVING ????

Spur said...

That's why S'pore is a paradise for employers and companies. 1st world infrastructure, educated english-speaking workforce, tough pro-business laws, but with 3rd world employment laws.

Our employment regulations today are about the same as 1912-era in US or UK, 100 years ago.

As for local unions, I am amazed that Sinkies still want to waste a few hundred dollars every year for useless donations. In my 20 years in the workforce, I have never joined any union even though plenty of pressure from HR and union reps etc.

Btw, for unions today to have a "legal strike", it has to be approved by union chief i.e. Lim Swee Say. Before he can say yes, he needs to clear with Cabinet ministers and PM first. What do you think of the probability? I think striking Toto got higher chance.

Ong Teng Cheong went ahead to approve the 1986 strike w/o getting clearance from the Cabinet. The PAP govt was very angry with OTC at that time. But OTC was prepared to do it, becoz he knew that if he let the Cabinet know beforehand, they will refuse to let him approve the strike.

C H Yak said...

See the TWISTING of events now now :-

(a) NTUC Chief blaming "workers and employers (SMRT) " not "working closely as a team" to resolve the dispute. (Luckily, he could act "blur" since SMRT China workers did not want to join Unions"...problem now is duplex and not "tripartite".

(b) TM Lui saying "Bus drivers' salaries must go up" and linking to "fare adjustment" after allowing millions of tax-payers' monies to improve "privatised PTO" 's budget to buy more buses.

Blog Archive