In tomorrow’s top story, guest writer PN Balji takes a look at “born-again citizens” (or new citizens) and the influence they may have on Singapore politics.
Gilbert Goh
I refer to the article, “Labour chief says legislations is not the solution”, on Channel news Asia dated 11 Dec 08.
Tripartism only works when all parties play their part fairly in equal proportion. I know the merits of tripartism as advocated by our Labour Chief Lim Swee Say to be a peaceful and fair way of resolving labour disputes.
Nevertheless, events this year have proved that tripartism may not work well in a downturn as many companies will want to retrench workers as fast as possible to reduce cost. They may even chop our own local workers as they are deemed more expensive and less abled due to various reasons. I agree with Mr Lim here that legislation will not work and it may even cause a company to go under.
Our workers all along have a centralised union which is counted on to speak and fight on their behalf. So far, this seem to have worked well as we have relatively few labour disputes – an exception perhaps the infamous SIA pilot pay conflict. The unions, unfortunately, only cover a portion of our working population and many executives that earn more than a certain income are still union-less and subject to the unfair hire-and-fire policy of many companies. This group appears vulnerable and may need some form of legislation to protect their employment rights which is currently missing.
The recent DBS retrenchment of 600 workers, though unionised, is a stark example of how tripatism may not work in a recession. Though the bank supports tripartism, it only pays lip service to such policy whenits bottomline is at stake. So long as they have compensated adequately those that they have retrenched, they are deemed to carried out the retrenchment within the labour laws here.
Companies will choose to take this bitter medicine against the wishes of their workers as it is the swiftest way to reduce cost. Tripartism, as argued, can only work well in good times. During bad times, employers will have no time and resources to consult their workers as the whole ship will sink if drastic action is not taken immediately.
I feel that after-care support for retrenched workers needs to be enhanced further here rather than constantly supporting the call for tripartism. The SPUR (Skills programme for upgrading and resilience) initiative is a step forward as our workers will benefit from constant upgrading. However, our workers may not be able to get any jobs after re-training in a severe recession as job creation is minimal.
I support the call for a limited form of unemployment benefit given to deserving people such as breadwinners – with strings attached. They have to go for retraining and job interviews failing which their benefits will be removed. This is only fair as there is no free lunch anywhere.
As Singapore remains vulnerable to more job losses, let us move forward with new intiatives rather than holding on to old policies that may not work anymore in this modern world.
———-
Yes the people’s who be retrench has no job for time being.
If he the only person working where there are five family in the house 4room.
We can imagine he has to pay PUB bill, S & C Town Council, Tel bill, children school fee, school bus, MRT fare. All this where he got the money?
The government has to anlighten this people.
Unemploment benefit is the way they has to be given.
Rubbish. Employees do not have any say on retrenchment unless employees have the power to disrupt the employer.
“So long as they have compensated adequately those that they have retrenched, they are deemed to carried out the retrenchment within the labour laws here.”
FYI, retrenchment benefits are not mandatory by law. A company can choose not to pay any.
count yourself lucky if one is retrench because retrenchment at least have retrenchment benefits so call.
some companies may just close down a certain non-making division. In such cases, I wonder whether any compensation is given???
it’s totally useless against the BIG. Did DBS discuss with the UNION?
BY sending the unemployed for “retraining”, Lim SS is simply trying to make the unemployment statistics look better. Those on training are NOT considered unemployed under our national employment statistics!!
1) Mohamad Hamim on December 11th, 2008 3.53 pm
Yes the people’s who be retrench has no job for time being.
If he the only person working where there are five family in the house 4room.
We can imagine he has to pay PUB bill, S & C Town Council, Tel bill, children school fee, school bus, MRT fare. All this where he got the money?
As usual, you can’t pay your HDB arrears, get out of the flat, you can’t pay for your utilities bills, they cut off your supply, you can’t pay up your TCs acumulated fees, they send you to court and slap you with additional summons, you still can’t pay, they throw you into jail. This is a very special country where poor citizens are no different from criminals.
I support the call for unemployment benefits with strings attached. In fact, Singapore should have a national unemployment insurance scheme whereby workers (regardless of level) contribute a small percentage of their income to a fund each month, which they can claim against when they get retrenched. This has worked well in countries like South Korea. In fact, many economists, including those linked to the government, have called for this.
Why this MSM editor keeps getting spot light in TOC?
Any link between TOC and MSM?
MSM is MSM. PERIOD.
Question to Everyone:
1. If an UNemployed answers the call to retrain, and takes on a MBA fulltime.
Tell me he is no longer part of UNemployment statistic ?
2. If an UNemployed registers a sole proprietorship for a small amount of administrative fee, tell me he is no longer part of the UNemployment statistics, even if he does nothing with the company as in zero business activity?
I urge all to ponder over these questions and then give your honest opinion.
Gilbert,
After a person learnt a new skill, he may not get any job offer in the new line of work because the employers can always get experienced foreign labor for a good price. Look at the newspapers or online job ads. How often do we see job requirement is for people who have been trained but FRESH as in no experience? Almost all of the time, requirement is something like “minimum 2 years experience”.
Its easy to just ask or advise or encourage people to go for training.
Its too easy.
The question is what is the efficacy?
There are an estimated 200,000 contract and part-time workers in Singapore. In 2005, both Lim Swee Say and Lim Boon Heng called for more protection for contract and part-time workers. They even urged government to crack down on employers who exploit them, and also pointed out that labor laws cover such workers as well.
Both argued that these workers should at least get their CPF, medical needs, annual leave and training. Mr. Lim Swee Say also added, “A growing number of contract workers may be deprived of these because of market practices”.
What is strange is that both Lim Boon Heng and Lim Swee Say are part of the government and yet they “urge” the government to protect the contract and part-time workers, who are often the lower-income workers?
As rightly pointed out by both men, these contributions to CPF, medical needs, annual leave and training, are not just the aspirations of the contract/part-time worker, it is but a RIGHT enshrined in the labor laws of Singapore.
So, if they are enshrined in the labor law of Singapore, how did the ‘market practices’ determine that these rights could be ‘stolen’ from the workers? Is it because there is no effective enforcement by the government of Singapore on the employers who have scant regard for the laws that protect the weakest in the land?
By making a statement to indicate that the government should ‘crack down on employers who exploit them’, the Lims have indicated that they have knowledge of at least some of these corporate offenders. Since this call by the ‘labor leaders’ in 2005, how many errant employers, who flout the rules, have been brought to task?
DBS Union should have done the following
Workers get paid and end sit-in at Chicago factory
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Laid-off workers whose sit-in at their closed factory came to symbolize Main Street’s resentment of the Wall Street bailout accepted a settlement on Wednesday that provides them the severance they asked for and two months health care coverage, the parties involved said.
The workers occupying Republic Windows and Doors agreed to the deal worked out after days of negotiations that would provide each with about $7,000, putting an end to the sit-in that began on Friday.
The total cost of $1.75 million was covered by a loan of $1.35 million provided by Bank of America Corp and $400,000 from JPMorgan Chase & Co, both creditors of Republic, said U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who helped mediate the negotiations.
Each of the more than 200 workers will be paid eight weeks salary, all accrued vacation and receive two months paid healthcare, Gutierrez said. The workers, given just three days notice of the plant’s closing last week, had demanded severance covering the legally mandated two-month notice period plus the vacation pay.
“This money will only be used to pay the workers the benefits they are owed under the law, and it will not, under any circumstance, be used for corporate bonuses, luxury cars or any other perk for the owners of the plant,” Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement.
The workers’ plight became a media sensation, with food donations pouring in and hundreds of protesters gathering outside Bank of America’s Chicago headquarters, where negotiations among the parties were held this week.
Bank of America, which bore the brunt of the criticism, said Republic was unable to operate profitably and had lost $10 million over the past two years, during which time the bank said it had lent the company the maximum amount it could.
In July, JPMorgan wrote off $5 million in loans and a $7 million investment that gave it a 40 percent stake in Republic, and resigned its seat on the company’s board, a spokesman said.
President-elect Barack Obama and other politicians have voiced support for the workers’ cause, arguing the Wall Street bailout was not serving its purpose of loosening credit for Main Street businesses. Bank of America has tapped the bailout for $15 billion and JPMorgan for $25 billion.
(Additional reporting by Deborah Charles and Michael Conlon; editing by Todd Eastham)
Hi All,
I have mentioned before that we have poor union labour laws all along.
Our unions largely are for show only and never benefit the workers.
During the last recession 2002-2003, tens of thousands of unionised workers were all retrenched as MNCs pulled out their labour intensive companies to cheaper countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and China.
How did unions help them at all?
The previous fisaco involving DBS retrenchment also painfully brought out the non-involvement of unions here. You believe that LIm Swee Say is not informed before DBS pulled the plug on the 900 workers? You must be kidding here.
Temasek has a huge stake in DBS and I think when it comes to the dollars and sense, no unions especially our’s, can do anything about the retrenchment. The workers remain a prawn here. They have no power.
Moving forward, I advocate the following:
1. Limited form of unemployment benefit with strings attached – as Gerald pointed out we all can contribute a yearly small sum into the fund for dispension to deserving breadwinner when they are unemployed. The $1 that we contribute to our three self help group (CDAC, Mendaki, Sinda) per month can be used for such a purpose also.
2. More involvement of our workers in decision making in unions – tripartism only works when all three parties have equal say and voice. So far, to what I see, the govt and companies are heavily invovled at the expense of our official unions to the disadvantage of our workers.
3. Continuous upgrading of skills – workers need to constantly upgrade their skills and not wait till they are retrenched. This will be too late as during a downturn it is almost impossible to get another job easily even after gaining new skills.
I hope we can initiate new policies for the current downturn. The call for skills upgrading is archaic and the results are still uncertain.
Nice words are being used by the oft-colourful LSS. As colourful as the very opiang floral dress worn by NTUC members.
Legislation and Tripartism cannot work without one or the other unless the voice of our largest trade union is an independent one. This is the problem with Singapore because of the timid and subservient nature of NTUC.
For tripartism to work well here, the voice of the union must first and foremost serve the cause of the worker while is goes about working out the best solution that benefit all parties.
Where is this voice in the business dealings we have seen so far with the current layoff exercises. Even the PAP govt was caught offguard (or so it tried to make us believe) by DBS’s layoff exercise.
With this in mind, it suffice to say that our union ought to be made up of the workers and not some government officials whose interests are vested more in line with the party’s national interests as opposed to the workers’ interests. How can tripartism work in such scenarios? For show, Yes. For real, No.
The only way it can work is for the government to introduce legislations that are clear and fair and to indicate and state clearly how a worker’s interest ought to be lprotected especially in times where layoff is deemed necessary. There must be other workable options before any layoff is considered. These must be legislated.
The worker does not trust the NTUC anymore than they would trust their employer to safeguard their jobs. NTUC has lost its purpose the same way the PAP govt has lost theirs. They are nothing but a bunch of birds with the same feathers. You lose trust in one, you’ll lose trust in all.
Tripartism is a check & balance mechanism that has its merits for labour relations and safeguard exploitation of workers, but not as a cure for economic problems. It’s never intended as such. In any case, Singapore does not have any labour tripartism – it’s a bipartism as best, as Gemami pointed out in (15), but that is another story altogether.
What we have today is a global meltdown from bloated institutions long dead but kept alive on credit life-support. As a result, when they go, tons of jobs are lost, but when public money is being pumped to keep them alive without any meaningful and sustainable restructuring, Govt spending goes up and yet the people are not better off, except those who still get to keep their job at these companies. Managed restructuring is the way to go for institutions that are deemed relevant and which stand a good chance to compete in this economy; for institutions that have passed their expiry date, shuttering them is the best option, though bitter medicine by any definition.
I would urge the Govt to seriously review requests by foreign companies to set up base in Singapore, especially during times like this. While it seems like a glimmer of hope that XYZ company is setting up shop in Singapore, if there is a good chance that they will move operations elsewhere when things pick up, don’t even let them start in the first place. Focus on companies that have a better chance of doing well here in Singapore in the long run. Help them and their consumers with the costs of doing business and costs of living in Singapore. Trim the many layers of overheads, levies, charges and taxes.
To tiredsingaporean,
It so funny… hehehehehehehe….
I know you do not have any ill intent but I don’t think it is funny when such situations are real and real people are living through them on a daily basis.
we heavily rely on USA, they cough, we vomit. Our economy is an open one. Is there other alternative that could let us rely less on USA. I doubt our economy can be slightly close due to the small mkt here.
16)logicalman
My fear is that more workers will be laid off starting from next year and the retrenchment may be massive. Much worse than we have ever see before in history.
NTUC and tripartism will not work as so far we are not those that will negotiate with companies. They will also not negotiate as delaying the retrenchment will only prolong the misery. Some companies just do not have any choices but to trim off as their survival depends on it.
There is also no work going on and excess staff became very redundant. Some of my friends said their factories were near shutdown schedule i.e. there is no order coming in for a very long time.
Going forward, the govt really needs to come up with some new initiatives to soften the impact of retrenchment. Many families will have no food on the table nor power/water when their bills are left unpaid.
During the 2003/4 crisis when I was a social worker in Woodlands, I did many home visits to check on applications to welfare aid and my heart broke.
Many families lived from hand to mouth and some just ate rice with sauces. I knew it as I happened to visit them during one dinner period. Not only did they have no power/water, they hardly have any dignity living on. Needless to say, I quickly approved their welfare aid so that they have some money to survive on.
We really need to come up with the unemployment benefit however jaded it is. Holding on to our archaic value ot attaching such benefit to laziness/failure to work simply does not hold water now when there is hardly any job available in the market. The breadwinner and family only prolong their misery in very fragile condition.
During a recession, the suicide rate also jumped up alot and I heard some of my colleagues had clients that jumped off building when they can’t provide for their families. It is so sad and real.
Dear Gilbert
Your fears about retrenchment are not unfounded. What will follow is a significant level of structural unemployment as companies & businesses fold due to falling demand and mounting debts (the latest is that GM and Chrysler will probably turn belly-up since the bailout was rejected by Senate, and I personally think more big players in financial sector will collapse, bailout notwithstanding). These are things that the Govt cannot do much about. In a free market economy, businesses thrive or die based on market forces. To artificially prop them up will be like doing dental fillings for a tooth that is long dead.
What the Govt can and should do is to trim the costs of doing business and living (read: rentals, direct & indirect taxes, levies, charges), and the unsightly fat in the civil service, beginning from the top office holders. When I look at the PAP town councils, especially after a fellow netizen pointed out, I am appalled at sheer number of committees and councillors. Ditto with the GRC makeup. Too many hands in the soup, if you ask me.
With our Govt doing its part as suggested above, I am very sure viable but challenged businesses will not go belly up and may even thrive in these conditions, leading to growth and long-term survival.
To the Govt:
less talk, less slogans, less campaigns (Happy Toilets, at times like this?).
More action, more sacrifice, more sensible policies
sorry, enlighten me again. WHAT tripartism? NTUC was meant to help the workers. Now that’s news to me.
I had this impression they were making money from the people who shop at their supermarkets, given their market-pricing.
I had this impression that the labour chief who is in charge of labour movement and supposed to fight for workers rights only reacted “angrily” when DBS retrenched 900 people.
Silly me, they were helping the workers through all these.
Hi me,
You’re absolutely right, when did NTUC last speak up for the worker?
This LSS guy is all talk but no action. There is no air of authority about him. His words do not carry any weight with businesses and businessmen. No one gives a shit to what he says. So sissy, how to command respect?
In 1966 I was in my 20s and I was working as a labourer in a meat packing works in summer in NZ. I was a full-time student and I supported myself through uni.
Though I was a Chinese but the white and Maori workers elected me as their trade union delegate.
I had a lot of trouble with the employers and so one finr day I called a strike. Hell broke loose. The sheep, pigs and cows were on the loose.
At the end of it the employers and me got on very well. They were sweet and diplomatic.
So, I do not believe in tripartism. Crab.
Ronnie.