Weikiat.NET

I was reading Straits Times in camp yesterday when I stumbled across the worst written article ever. I forgive the reporter though, as this article shows signs of trying to convince people that “an apple is an orange”.

Working less than 35 hours a week? You’re a part-timer

THOSE who work fewer than 35 hours a week will soon be considered part-time workers, under changes to be made to the Employment Act.

This suggestion, made during a three-week public consultation on proposed amendments to the Act, has been accepted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

Initially, MOM had proposed that part-timers be defined as those who work 35 hours or less, as opposed to the Act’s existing definition of under 30 hours.

It said: ‘In consultation with the tripartite partners, MOM agrees that if part- time employees are defined as those who work 35 hours or less, full-time employees on a five-day, seven-hour working arrangement may be re-classified as part-time employees and have their employment benefits pro-rated accordingly.

‘In view of this, the ministry would accept this proposal.’ It made the announcement on its website and that of the feedback unit Reach.

The reason for the original proposal is to coax more employers to offer part-time work and attract more women back to work.

This amendment is among 23 to be made to the Act, which covers about 1.4million workers. It provides them with basic employment benefits such as salary protection, minimum employment terms and dispute resolution. Senior managers, seamen, domestic workers and government employees are excluded.

In coming up with the amendments, MOM consulted the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF).

Last month, the proposals were put out for public feedback. MOM received more than 70 written comments.

However, the ‘part-time worker’ suggestion was the only one it agreed with.

The decision was welcomed by Mr Koh Juan Kiat, executive director of the SNEF.

He said a sizeable proportion of full-time employees in, for instance, the cleaning and security sectors, is on a five-day, seven-hour work week.

‘Changing the definition will protect these workers,’ he said.

Agreeing, Mr Abdul Subhan Shamsul Hussein, president of the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers’ Union, said it would remove the possibility of rogue employers exploiting workers by re-classifying them as part-timers and cutting back on their employment benefits.

Among the reasons MOM gave for rejecting several of the other suggestions were: to avoid rigidity in the labour market and to maintain economic competitiveness.

Hence, it turned down such ideas as increasing the notice period for leaving a job, and tying paid annual leave and sick leave to a worker’s years of service.

Last amended in 1995, the Employment Act is being tweaked to keep pace with changes in the labour market.

Increasingly, shorter employment and contract workers are becoming more widespread, following the increase of outsourcing by companies.

The 23 proposed changes cover four areas: revising the coverage of the Act, reviewing employment standards and benefits, enhancing penalties and enforcement powers, and rationalising existing provisions and repealing the outdated.

The amendments will go before Parliament soon and will probably come into effect next year.

kianbeng@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.

By upping the boundary between “part-time” and “full-time” work, many “full-time” workers will find that in order to maintain their “full-time” status and the related employee benefits, many will have to work 5 hours more a week. Is this good news?

And here are the very obvious parts that someone is trying to smoke you..

The reason for the original proposal is to coax more employers to offer part-time work and attract more women back to work.

Offering more part time job? Since you will have to work more than 35 hours (compared to 30 hours previously) in order for your work to consider as “part-time”, employers can now offer “part-time” job with as many man-hours as “full-time” jobs in the past and give lesser employee benefits. There is a very good word for what is going on. The word is “exploitation”.

He (Mr Koh Juan Kiat, executive director of the SNEF) said a sizeable proportion of full-time employees in, for instance, the cleaning and security sectors, is on a five-day, seven-hour work week.

‘Changing the definition will protect these workers,’ he said.

Agreeing, Mr Abdul Subhan Shamsul Hussein, president of the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers’ Union, said it would remove the possibility of rogue employers exploiting workers by re-classifying them as part-timers and cutting back on their employment benefits.

So by cutting back on employment benefits of those who were once (under the old definition) considered “full-time” employees and classifying them as “part-time” employees, exploitation by employers can be prevented? Well.. that is if this reclassification isn’t an exploitation in the first place.

Initially, MOM had proposed that part-timers be defined as those who work 35 hours or less, as opposed to the Act’s existing definition of under 30 hours….

…Last month, the proposals were put out for public feedback. MOM received more than 70 written comments.

However, the ‘part-time worker’ suggestion was the only one it agreed with.

This is the ultimate move of the century. Make up your own decision, ask public for feedback, and then reject all the feedbacks except for the one that is same as your own original decision. No one can blame you for not listening to the public. Seriously.

What rubbish.

Please rate: (5 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)

 Loading ...