14 November 2012 (not published by St Times)
Editor, Forum Page
Straits Times
I wish to ask if our bus operators and other establishments
that provide essential services have made special efforts to
notify their employees, especially the foreign workers, that
they would be committing a crime, if they went on on an
illegal strike and disrupt public transport and other
essential services.
Perhaps it should be made compulsory for them to join a
trade union, so that they can be represented by the trade
union and advised on how their grievances can be addressed.
It is compulsory for businesses to be a member of the
Singapore Business Federation. This same compulsion should
be extended to workers in essential services, with the membership
fees borne by the employee. As the employer now has to
bear the worker's levy, the cost of the membership fee should be
quite small
Tan Kin Lian
4 comments:
@"It is compulsory for businesses to be a member of the
Singapore Business Federation."
I think not in the case of foreign MNCs ... in the construction industry, though not "essential services", the scenario is not much different from SMRT's.
After the strike there are at least 2 minor cases involving construction industry where subcontrcating is predominant.
Just imagine, bully a foreign worker, who is most probably not highly educated, and not fully conversant with our Laws and Regulations, and jail him on such grounds,or chase him out of the country.
The Chinese Govt has valid reasons to be concerned with its own Nationals' legal rights treatment in Singapore.
Using the same MAS "Alert Investor List" Cavert Emptor on ignorant FWS, Govt thinks it has done its full duty, and the rest it's not its responsibility.
FWs jolly well go and educate yourselves on our sacred cow's Laws. It's your funeral if you don't.
Ain't much use making it compulsory for join union. The unins in S'pore are practically useless.
If diplomatic channels fail, those workers ought to use the tools now readily available to the average joe- internet, social media.
@"Caveat Emptor" doctrine
Hahaha...good one..."Let buyers beware"...how about foreigners taking up cheap job offers which are discriminated in terms of wages...?
These GLCs throw it at foreign recruiters or agents ... these recruiters or agents are offering to "buy" ... so why "caveat emptor" to their benefit ... these SMRT drivers are selling their "services" ... it is a contract for service.
Talking about "illegality" if you make an "illegal" offer it is an "illegal" contract, even "caveat emptor" is not going to protect the procurer. LOL.
Post a Comment