Gilbert Goh
I refer to the article “Flexi-work law? No need” (ST 28 Aug).
I disagree with Manpower Minister Mr Gan Kim Yong that there is no need to implement legislation to reinforce the flexi-work arrangements to promote work life balance.
Numerous letters to the forum pages from our workers have all pointed to a worsening work life balance especially with the current ongoing recession. Workers who are still working have to cover the duties of those who are retrenched to save cost. Many workers take on extra duties without any additional pay and have to work beyond the stipulated 44-hour work week. Many workers dare not voice out for fear of losing their jobs, let alone complaining to the ministry directly. Many simply work way into the night just to hold on to their jobs.
Some working mothers I know have also indicated that they dare not try to have another child due to the imbalance work life situation here. Many mothers feel guilty that they have to work very late and could not find the time to spend with their young children. What good is it that you have many children but could not perform the role as a mother and enjoy their growing up years? Many simply place their kids with babysitters and only manage to spend some time with them over the weekend. It is an arrangement that they abhor but do it out of necessity without any viable alternatives. Such children also tend to bond more with their baby sitter’s family than their own parents. I was sadly a by-product of such a system.
My parents worked very late and had to put me and my brother up with a babysitter. We stayed with them for many years, only seeing our family twice a month. Naturally, my brother and I felt much closer with our babysitter family. When we were older we were very reluctant to move back to our parents’ home. My brother stayed with the sitter till he was 16 years old.
The same thing could happen if children are taken care of by domestic maids. It is obviously not an ideal situation for the family.
Women may not be able to simply resign from their work to be full time mothers due to the recent huge rise in the cost of living here. Living on one’s income alone is more like a luxury these days. Husbands will also pressure their well educated wives to work as they feel the stress of holding the fort all alone on one income.
Most employers will thus exploit the lax labour laws here to push workers to work beyond the average normal working hours.
Tripartism will only work if all three parties come together and work in union towards a common goal.
As of now, tripartism currently favours the employer more as without legislation they need not follow the call to implement family-friendly practices at work. Workers all have everything to lose here with no flexi-work rules in place. Any good law without proper legislation is subjected to abuse and we are currently seeing this right now in Singapore.
—-
Picture from Straits Times.
—-
i don’t understand the very person who says S”porean workers are not flexible can say don’t need flexi-work laws.
double talk?
45) Orlando Moon to Louisa #38 on September 2nd, 2009 11.43 pm
Here’s what my classmates say about politics, “We know something’s going on, but we don’t care.” It’s not that the youth are unaware of alternative views – we do, we know there’s more to the pretty flowers we are presented with; but what we choose to do with that knowledge is a different matter. I chose not to take swallow everything just because it’s convenient, I choose to look deeper into the matter, I cannot say my peers do the same. By saying that we need to turn to blogs that offer alternative views, that in your own way, you’re simply dismissing us youth as a group who are unable to think for ourselves. It’s a conscious choice to pretend there’s nothing wrong, it’s not because we are “unaware”, it’s because they don’t care.
You based it on the 100 or so youths you have met, I based it on my daily interactions with my schoolmates and social circle. I am wondering, is it that hard to accept that youths do not care? Just as I don’t care about football, and yet some would think it a crime to feel that way. Take it as arrogance, the belief that the events going on around the youth now won’t affect them later in life.
As I’ve said, just because you think youths should do something, it doesn’t mean that we would. Just because you think I should read up on alternative views, it doesn’t mean that I’ll do it because you think it’s right. Would you take kindly to being told how to live your life if you are content with what you have at the moment? I think not.
You haven’t exactly discussed everything in detail with me, I do believe that your verdict on who you think I am has been rather hasty. I never once said youths would be unaffected, I said this, “We feel that we won’t be affected when we are older.” We ‘feel’ does not mean we won’t be. I was simply trying to explain the perspective of the youths as a whole. Let’s look at it this way, on one hand, you are telling me it’s the choice of the youth to read up on alternative views, on the rather hand, you’re telling me that we must – in order to be “aware” as you put it. Different people have different views, yes I understand that, but even as I am trying to explain the views of youths in general, you assume that I am one of them for knowing what it is like with my peers.
The both of us place different emphasis on the importance of certain things, perhaps it is because of the relatively different experiences we have, that what I feel is acceptable is unacceptable to you. But this does not mean that I will not be concerned about transparency, but conspiracies do not convince me of anything, it simply tells me that whoever does it has no strong evidence to support that point.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your words, because what you said was, “do you know under the current law,” and I took it as if you were trying to tell me something as opposed to asking a question.
Louisa.
50) RW on September 3rd, 2009 2.00 pm
thank you, I’ve been trying to phrase it correctly for quite a while.
@51) RW on September 3rd, 2009 2.02 pm
Hi RW,
We seems to be drifting from the topic of flexi-laws, maybe I am at fault to mention start-ups, etc.
The difference in “work benefits” offered by MNC vs local firms are generally acknowledged. Do you agree that after 40+ years of self-rule, with the options to adopt best-in-class practises from all over the world, Singapore management ethnics as a whole is just not up to par with many developed countries? Do you think our labor policies, like the “walkover” of flexi-work laws discussed herein, have anything to do with this third-world management mentality after 40+ years?
On support schemes. I have the impression that you think that as long as there is money injection, then it shows that the govt is doing something, maybe you think even the right things but not in an efficient way. Flexi-hours came up for discussion because the Baby Bonus scheme is simply a FAILURE. For such issues (and even the start-ups), we are looking at effectiveness, not efficiency. $230 millions given in 2008 for Baby bonus and yet the TFR = 1.28. Duh?!
Throwing money at problems isn’t generally a good practice, at least not in the private sector as I know it. I guess it boils down to ACCOUNTABILITY, something which pro-policy supporters in blogs have carefully avoided in their answers.
Also, do you agree on the possibility that some show of money injection may just be a wayang show? I mean MILLIONs are no doubt “available” for schemes like Baby Bonus, CDC assistance, start-ups, SPUR, etc., but compare with the unconfirmed 300-500 BILLIONS in TH/GIC portfolio. It is reported TH Care donates $1m a year for social-welfare works. It is also reported TH achieved “annualised” returns of 18%. Assuming TH base was say $50 billions, $1m is what, peanuts? If this what you call “assistance”? Of course they would think $1m to monkeys is a big deal.
We can further share views on roles of private sector, GLCs, govt, etc, but I hope you can clear the perceptions above first. Only then I may understand what you meant that I’m contradicting my earlier post.
54) theforgottengeneration
You are probably right, we are drifting away from the topic. but since no one else is reading this anymore, i guess no harm done. ;)
I guess there is some truth in what you say about the state of our management. IMO, it’s about the individual office culture and local companies are still not adopting the best practices.
To be fair to MOM, they have endorsed and encouraged these best practices. The question is- is that enough? Given our local companies are stuck in the ‘squeeze everything out of workers’ mentality, maybe mere encouragement is not enough and stronger actions like mandatory laws are needed to force the culture.
It is like the do-not-litter campaign, first they use force (such as corrective work order), then people get it and automatically don’t litter. Probably with laws and enforcement, we can eventually build up gd HR practices and culture.
Of course, there are problems to it too. Apart from the often heard “loss of competitiveness vis-a-vis other economies” and “labor rigidity” argument, there is also the problem of definition and enforcement for the long working hours issue.
My understanding of general practice is bosses do not regulate the number of hour people work, but on the amount of work they do. Meaning bosses do not explicitly ask you to work OT, but give you so much work that it is impossible to complete it w/o OT. In that kind of situation, it is hard to enforce because the workers ‘volunteered’ to do work at home/work late. Maybe govt can regulate the amt of work? But that is probably impractical. I am still looking out if any other countries hold some answer to this. Maybe our discussion may throw up smth eventually.
About the support schemes, I guess the answer depends on what qns is asked.
Is the govt helping (period)? Probably Yes, because of the schemes.
Is the govt helping in an effective way? Probably not, based on the returns of those companies.
I guess the nature of what the govt is doing in this case is something like venture capitalist funds. A group of businesses come to you with their business proposals and you pick the ones you think will ‘win’. Of course, in business, there is no such thing as 100% right- VC usually waste a lot of money and occasionally strike jackpot with one ‘Google’ or one ‘Microsoft’, thus evening out in the process.
But of course, even when we aggregate the returns of all startups on the whole, it is still not on par with the VCs. Probably accountability comes in when we demand that they better start guessing better (and be on par with the VCs).
On the point of TH/GIC, using TH/GIC may not be such a good reference point because they are savings (stock), not revenue (flow). My personal belief (and you may disagree) is we should spend what we earn. If we don’t, we will probably ending up like the US (eventually), owing the whole world money. They are an impt country so China/Japan/MiddleEast LL have to play along. If it was Singapore, we will be devalued like the Thais and Indonesians during AFC.
So yes, the millions spent look small in comparison to the billions in savings. But that is probably not the reference point I will look at. If we look at it against the whole budget, things will probably look better.
@55) RW on September 4th, 2009 1.35 am
RW, since no one else is reading, I guess I shouldn’t be spending much time henceforth. People like me are not paid for thinking thru policies or working thru feedback, you understand? We’re just performing basis CSR by voicing some concerns as citizens.
Your views seem to be on an overview basis, like painting in broad strokes without concern about details or effects. I know where that is coming from & it is your call. But maybe you or your colleagues should step back (and out) and see the ground with opened eyes. This is my own opinion, no offense intended.
1) So just VERY broadly:
“….IMO, it’s about the individual office culture and local companies are still not adopting the best practices.
To be fair to MOM, they have endorsed and encouraged these best practices. The question is- is that enough?….”
Such thinking resounds of the Japs’ stand on the Geneva Convection during WW2. I believe they signed it but didn’t “ratified” it. Subsequently, if the lower levels have a “free” hand or even “guidelines” to do all sorts of things/atrocities, did tne Allies think that the higher Jap Command/system was not at fault? At worst, we are talking at least some moral obligation and not just “endorsing” or “encouraging”. At min., having things like flexi-work law, per this discussion. At best….?
2) About help schemes. I know you have a different perception on accountability, efficiency and “help”. Let’s me ask;
If I see a drowning man, and I just hold out 1 finger as a symbol of “help”, or stupidly throw in a small plank that obviously can’t hold the weight of a person, would you classify these as “help”? Of course under cameras etc… I could even be turned into some hero. You can argue it is also up to the efforts of the drowning man to best use the small plank as his life is at stake! But isn’t help and its effectiveness interrelated? What is “help” if it is of no help? Is our standards so low to pat ourselves with half-helps?
In the private sector, if a manager disbursed $230 millions in a campaign to boost a “product/service” to a market acceptance level of (say) 2.1, but the returns is only 1.28, I know for certain it is bye-bye mgr next year. Now how long has our TFR been sliding, 20-30 years?!!? However, I understand the public sector is very forgiving. Look at the MSK saga.
3) About VCs mentality. Yup, that’s what I think the different depts are doing – they don’t really think, just throw money especially if it is not their money! I can only say a general worth his salt should fight all battles and win them. Sure, he picks some battles (resources are always limited), but what he choose MUST be a winner. Guessing is not an option, especially with the smallness of S’pore, as you have highlighted. Otherwise, like spotting questions in exams — might get it right only 50% of the time, but still expects an “A” in terms of salary…er, exam grading? Wouldn’t someone then logically ask for a more competent general? If give-and-misses are accepted, then why not employ a PFC or even a monkey instead?
So, WHAT DO YOU SEE ….
Remember: speaking good English increases one’s competitiveness! Starting with simple English can certainly help. Do try!
As I have mentioned before, and DPM Teo certainly concurs, speaking good English increases one’s ability to comprehend issues, articulate sound ideas and increase one’s competitiveness in the workplace! Starting with simple English can certainly help. Do try!
Come Together
post #58 on September 5th, 2009 1.15 pm
“Remember: speaking good English increases one’s competitiveness! Starting with simple English can certainly help. Do try!”
tell that to frontline service staff who is not able to speak basic english.
you probably have not hear these service staff asking can you speak chi….
57) theforgottongeneration
nah, no offense taken. Listening to opposite views, especially well-articulated ones, are always a good learning experience.
Just to clarify, I am not working for the govt or any related bodies- (if that is the impression you got). I’m too stupid to be the high-flyer scholar, so only can play play online. ;) Plus, real ones where will post here, their rice bowl & high pay are at stake!
On your points,
2) Your example suggest that the problem is– inadequate help is given. Does that mean (i) too little money given to SMEs, or (ii) some other help is needed other than money? My impression is we have adequate financing. From govt, there are many schemes under SPRING. From incubators, there are orgs like NUS giving seed funding too. Then, there are private investors too. In fact, VCs in Singapore complain there are not enough startups for them to finance. So in terms of financing, I don’t think inadequate is the right problem.
3) If govt is being inefficient with the funding they are giving out, that means they are being too generous with SMEs, helping ‘bad/inefficient’ SMEs as well. Doesn’t that make the government extremely helpful to SMEs? That was what I mean there is a contradiction between ‘govt not helping’ and ‘govt giving money indiscriminately’
Having said that, I agree that their guessing is bad and that has to change. So I guess, we are in agreement there.
For the main topic (I admit I digressed a lot), I guess the question is whether they should go beyond ‘encouraging’ to ‘legislating’ flexi-work laws.
Understandably, there are downsides to it:
(A) Loss of Competitiveness. There is the usual ‘lead to higher costs, companies will pull-out’ song, which everyone knows.
(B) Blunt Instrument. Flexi-work labor laws need to be taken into context of specific industry. For office workers (which most people are biased towards), it may sound great because there is telecommuting. But for service industries, manufacturing (machine operators), how does that work out? My point is we need to look at the jobs itself- some jobs simply require the person to be there, to be considered work. You can’t let workers bring the machine home or close shop and direct customers to home.
Can the law specify all the industries/jobs that are covered or not covered? Probably not, because there are so many industries/jobs out there and they are changing, laws are not a good measure.
So is there any upside?
Not really, since it is found to be generally ineffective. Britain introduced it and that did not help in any way. See BBC article on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7986101.stm
RW
“Can the law specify all the industries/jobs that are covered or not covered? Probably not, because there are so many industries/jobs out there and they are changing, laws are not a good measure.”
then why not scrap all laws?
there is an upside & downside to everything. yet sometimes however ineffective it may be, it is still rolled out. Baby Bonus (to raise birthrates) & ERP (to regulate traffic flow).
hmmm, let’s scrap ERP!!! :P
RW,
Again, you are entitled to you views. All I can say is that there are different points to looking at accountability — either from a quantitative, qualitative, or end results pt of view. Take MSK escape case:
1) We can pat ourselves for having learned a lesson, or scream for heads for incompetency. I believe the garhem chose the former.
2) We can deploy hundreds of servicemen to ring-fence the area for 3 weeks or GUESS better in the first critical 1-2 hours of escape. I believe the garhem did the former.
3) Did we deploy enough resources to try to recapture him? YES, as shown on the media. Did we find him? NO, but according to your reasoning, the garhem did a fairly good job, no doubt having to spend a vast amount of money in damage control. So, let’s overlook the small detail that MSK was not captured in the process.
4) Did we learned anything from this? YES, cos a new detention center is being built for MSK. Err, unfortunately, M’sia ain’t handling him over to us. But it’s OK, money was spent aka on a brand-new & empty detention center.
5) So, how to you seriously rank this episode from a resources input vs end result point of view? A “C-”? From me, it is definitely a “F+”, the plus being out of consideration for the poor servicemen deployed for 3 weeks in a wild goose chase. Not to mention all the inconvenience at the causeway check points.
So, with a skewed positive reasoning, I’m sure our leaders can easily justify the high pay that they think they are entitled to. LOL.
Primary school kids would tell you that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.
For every unnecessary policy there are more unnecessary problems.
When you bring foreigners to do the work which ordinary SINGAPOREANS can do (better), the following happens :
1) Artificially suppressed wages at the expense of true local talents. ( If explanation needed, I can fiurther expand on this point)
2) The emergence of ‘cheap’ labour creating an illusion for employers that they are getting better deal through lower wage costs.
3) To add fuel to fire, the Government every ready to suck money out of emloyers’ pockets, gets behind the scene to increase indirect taxes which eventually hit the pockets of all citizens, tearing big holes in the pockets of the lower middle class citizens.
4) Govenment forced to create further illusion of help by giving handouts of ‘peanuts’ occasionally.
5) This leaves about 50% of the population doubting the Government’ss intentions but helpless to do anything about it.
6) The Government ( ruling party), consequently feel the heat during elections, and unashamedly resorts to leegaly approved underhanded tactics to the detriment of the ‘clean image ‘ of Singapore .
….more later……….
A Government which shows even the slightest of impression that it CHEATS is not worthy of even a school kid’s respect.
ITS before our EYES, the only blockage is the helplessness of people at this stage. Understandable .
There is still FOOD on the Table. Even our Dogs Cats PETS AND STRAYS have enuff to eat by the Grace OF GOD, no thanks to the selfish PAP. So people say okay, lets tolerate. ….for now ….
I see many old folks grandpa’s and grandma s digging into Rubbish Bins to collect Boxes and cans when they should be retiring decently. Its ok still can eat 1to2 meal a day nv mind ………tolerance for now……. Wait till when they run out of Tolerance……………. PAP will say Look you still got cans to collect so bow down to we, for we can make lies to sound like truth…………..
But remember PAP what happened to Hitler ……….to Saddam……….and their Croaking Cronies……..and their likes throughout History ………….remember PAP when each of you die you have to give an Account to the Almighty whether you believe it or not and that day is going to be thunderous shock for thee for having pretended to care but in actuality you have shown disdain of the poor, elderly and the Needy ! Your pain would be 100 fold intolerable when you stand NAKED before your Maker and the TRUE LIVING JUDGE !, where there are no Kangaroos to play politics with Justice……………….
BEWARE that Day would come as a LIGHTNING very much unlike the fake one you are wearing as your emblem ! BEWARE!
63) mice is nice
true, many laws are not 100% enforceable.
people follow laws, but laws must also take practical consideration.
flexible working laws can only work for white collar workers who can telecommute. factory workers, service operators- coming up with flexible work arrangements will be difficult since work means being at a certain place at a certain time.
of course, i admit I am not be creative and thinking too hard to make it work. but at first glance, it does not address the concerns of these workers (which make a substantial part of the labor force) and may even backfire on them as they get pay cuts for doing less work.
abt ERP, hahahahaa. I am a mere mortal who squeeze on SBS/SMRT everyday. no offense, but i see it as a ‘rich man’ tax. :)
64) theforgottongeneration
actually I will agree with you on the mas selamat example. :)
doesn’t mean you deploy 1000s of NSFs means you had a good performance.
but i will say there is a slight difference between this scenerio and the SMEs one. in the latter case, govt’s role is to catalyst the entrep into success. Not to form GLCs and be successful.
these entrep are outside the government and they control/run their own business. since they are independent of the govt, the govt can only ‘bring them to the watering point, but can’t force them to drink’. hence, in light of the govt role, we should judge them based on whether they provide a conducive environment.
in mas selemat case, that is their show to run. police/army/gurkas are under their control. so, they have to be responsible for successes and failures.
RW
laws can work if they are tailored to specific industries. just as safety requirements differ from trade to trade.
considering the fact that people work to earn a living at minimal, some to start a family, & for many in time will take care of aging parents. these are social if not national concerns that also have implications that turn purely practical considerations upside down.
because based on practical considerations, men who are required by law to serve NS up to their specified age based on rank, are not any good for company bottomlines.
So far, the government seems to have just been paying lip service to the whole idea of work life balance.
I’m a mother of 2 young children. Having quit my full time job abt 1.5 years ago to spend time with my toddler son, i recently re-applied back to my previous organisation, a government stat board, when a full time vacancy opened up. During the course of the interview, i was just asked abt my childcare arrangement, including the fact that i have put my 2nd child at an infant care center.
The interview panel rather proudly informed me that the organisation had implemented a flexi work hour arrangement where an employee can choose to start work earlier and knock off by 530pm so long as she fulfills the 8.5 daily working hours requirement. i was rather candid with the panel (a stupid mistake as i later discovered) abt needing to fetch my child before the infant care center closes at 7pm and said that the flexi work hour arrangement would work out great for me. My rationale was, better to be upfront and honest. And afterall, i was just saying that i might consider taking up the alternative arrangement if it meant that i would be better able to attend to both the needs of the job and my family.
About 2 weeks later, i was informed that i had been rejected. When i asked for the reasons, i was told that they were concerned with the fact that my childcare arrangement would adversely affect my work performance. I further heard that some of the specific comments that the interview panel gave were: 1. I had resigned previously to spend time with my elder child so they had concern that I may do it again. (huh? Since when are we bound to a job for life? There are a myriad of reasons people leave the job, and I’m penalised for wanting to spend time with my family…) 2. I had mentioned that I would need to fetch my baby from the infant care center by 7pm (i had also said that i can make alternative arrangements should the need arise for me to work late on certain days, but obviously that was disregarded.).
So, generally it feels like I have been rejected because of the fact that I have a young family and am therefore perceived as a much lesser employee. This, despite the fact that I will be putting in the same number of working hours and efforts as any other staff. And this is a government stat board we are talking about.
A friend of mine who has a 2-year-old toddler told me that she had two job interviews with two government bodies recently. She was similarly bombarded with questions about having a young child, and was even blatantly told by one of the organisations that she should just remain in her current job as her current company was probably more pro-family.
So yes, i thk laws are essential since even the government, which is supposed to be leading the way in promoting work life balance, is not walking the talk. Mindsets (of employers, both government and private) need to be changed if we really want to achieve better work life balance for the general working population, and perhaps legislation is the only way kick start it.