What is the role of union in Singapore today
-
With most companies employing contract staff, what is the role of union in Singapore today, since most of the contract staff are not allowed to participate or benefit from a union.
-
Run supermarkets, taxi services, sell insurance, funeral services etc.
-
With most companies employing contract staff, what is the role of union in Singapore today, since most of the contract staff are not allowed to participate or benefit from a union.
Even the govt agencies are hiring on contract basis..... and how can this issue of unemployment be serious addressed? -
During the worse of recession back in 2003, Union chief had not objected to proposal of Ms Pung Ying Ying's committee to make all workers' wages variable, i.e. reducible to help employers overcome recessions irrespective of likelihood of abuses by employers who might take advantage of such scheme to reduce wages of workers to increase their own profitability.
Workers of Singapore are at the mercy of tripartism one of the major pillars of government.
Government has no hesitation to reduce workers' pays even if they increase their own pays quickly on the first sign of external recovery. Whether workers should correspondingly restore their reduced wage levels and CPF cut-backs is not their priority.
Taking the above-mentioned Union attitude towards workers, are Unions seniors and deputies working for the interest of workers or citizens of Singapore?
Are they intervening when employers take advantage of MOM's policy to bring in more foreigners on the undefined S-pass scheme?
The answers should be from the people. They have experienced how they had been treated - the first pawn to be captured on any economic chess board.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.istock.com -
First of all, I would like to state my position. I'm not pro-gov nor a union member. I'm just an ordinary citizen in the red dot.
The role of Unions in SG is very different from the other countires. We cannot stereo type unions' role by comparing them with other countries, who are rich in natural resources.
Our only resources in SG is human. Therefore, we depend on foreign investments for survival. We have to look at our predicament from a higher perspective. If our unions are going to be like those in Aust. who goes all out to fight for their workforce, we are going to lose lots of foreign investors. How many companies will want to invest their money here when riots, downtools, strikes, boycott,...etc happens now and then. We can't survive with such environment.
It is rather obvious that the tripartite system is just an eyewash. How many times did our unions call for a strike? The most recent issue of SIA - Pilot unions ends with our Big Bro stepping in. But it was for the interest of our national airline and the country as a whole. We can only sympathised with those who are affected.
The only way our unions can show their relevance in SG is to provide services to control prices of our goods and services. I would think they did a good job in Insurance. But they had killed a lot of provision shops in our neighbourhood. Nothing much we can do about it. We can only think positive and take the advantage to benefit from the services they provide.
With integrity in PAP and NTUC, the unions have serve their unique role in attracting foreign investors. On conclusion, they (unions) are just part of the Gov system to lead SG into being a first world country.
-
With integrity in PAP and NTUC, the unions have serve their unique role in attracting foreign investors. On conclusion, they (unions) are just part of the Gov system to lead SG into being a first world country.
A union of this nature would not be a union, isn't it? A union's primary role whether it's in Iraq, Antarctic, Afganistan or Singapore is to serve the interests of the workers; and if possible further promote their interests.
How old are you? Why are you not studying? -
You are just stereo typing the role of unions. Look at what SG was like during the 50s and 60s where the unions were then very active. Or perhaps you were still in liquid form. Go run to your Dad or Granddad and ask him what happened during the Hock Lee Bus riots where unions were then very active.Originally posted by pat33:A union of this nature would not be a union, isn't it? A union's primary role whether it's in Iraq, Antarctic, Afganistan or Singapore is to serve the interests of the workers; and if possible further promote their interests.
How old are you? Why are you not studying?
I believe you must have studied alot. (But u certainly had proven yourself wrong). Would you like a SG to be what it is today or a Sg during the 50s to 60s? I did not study much but I know what life is like when poverty is wide spread and how it's like when you don't even have a job.
Isn't it the interest of the workers in SG to stay employed or employable. Ensuring that jobs are available and good employer-employee relationship the interest of the workers/employee? Don't be so naive to interprete Unions' role as fighting with the Gov... You were lucky to be born in a the present time when SG is so successful. You were lucky not to have tasted poverty. I believe you are too young to understand what life is. Do visit countries like Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, see for yourself how lucky you were today. Haizzz....
BTW, I'm old enough to be your father if not Grandfather. Want to celebrate Father's Day with me?
-
actually what he said is true about the union not really being a union. in singapore's case the union is really just a name given to the govenrment controlled organisation. however bad life was due to the union activities of the 50s and 60s doesn't make a difference as to whether our union is really a union.Originally posted by Archirodon:You are just stereo typing the role of unions. Look at what SG was like during the 50s and 60s where the unions were then very active. Or perhaps you were still in liquid form. Go run to your Dad or Granddad and ask him what happened during the Hock Lee Bus riots where unions were then very active.
I believe you must have studied alot. (But u certainly had proven yourself wrong). Would you like a SG to be what it is today or a Sg during the 50s to 60s? I did not study much but I know what life is like when poverty is wide spread and how it's like when you don't even have a job.
BTW, I'm old enough to be your father if not Grandfather. Want to celebrate Father's Day with me?
wont go into the father and grandfather business since thats between you 2....... -
The 1960s were turbulent times indeed. It was a bad time to declare independence, to be exact. If we remained longer with London, our unions would have been more developed. In western countries, the unions fight tooth and nail for ordinary workers' welfare. Those in the 60s were mere communist fronts and had no noble intentions.Originally posted by Archirodon:You are just stereo typing the role of unions. Look at what SG was like during the 50s and 60s where the unions were then very active. Or perhaps you were still in liquid form. Go run to your Dad or Granddad and ask him what happened during the Hock Lee Bus riots where unions were then very active.
I believe you must have studied alot. (But u certainly had proven yourself wrong). Would you like a SG to be what it is today or a Sg during the 50s to 60s? I did not study much but I know what life is like when poverty is wide spread and how it's like when you don't even have a job.
BTW, I'm old enough to be your father if not Grandfather. Want to celebrate Father's Day with me? -
In Singapore, unions have to reinvent itself because SG is a little red dot, who does not have any natural resources. Our Unions can't be like unions of the other countires. That is why I mentioned our union is unique from other unions. We have to think out of the box and stop stereo typing. I'm going to enjoy my advance father's day celebration. Cherio.Originally posted by hisoka:actually what he said is true about the union not really being a union. in singapore's case the union is really just a name given to the govenrment controlled organisation. however bad life was due to the union activities of the 50s and 60s doesn't make a difference as to whether our union is really a union. -
i think that was the point of sayign that our union is not really a union cos its so different for the "real unions".Originally posted by Archirodon:In Singapore, unions have to reinvent itself because SG is a little red dot, who does not have any natural resources. Our Unions can't be like unions of the other countires. That is why I mentioned our union is unique from other unions. We have to think out of the box and stop stereo typing. I'm going to enjoy my advance father's day celebration. Cherio.
i have my gripes about our union not doing anything, i admit. but i think most pple, even supporters would have to agree that our union is not a union in the common or traditional sense of the word -
You can put it that way if you like. The ultimate point is still for the interest of our workers and employees, and that is staying employed and get paid.Originally posted by hisoka:i think that was the point of sayign that our union is not really a union cos its so different for the "real unions".
i have my gripes about our union not doing anything, i admit. but i think most pple, even supporters would have to agree that our union is not a union in the common or traditional sense of the word
Really, the role of the Unions is not really that important in SG because there are other legislation to safe guard the employees' interest and welfare. Eg, The Employment Act, The Workmen Compensation Act, The Factories Act, The Industrial Relations Act... etc These will ensure that there are common playing field for both employers and employees. At least for the lower rung employees.
Don't get me wrong as to think I'm one of the union or the Gov people. I'm not. I do agree that the unions in SG is not doing as much as the their counterparts of other countries because there is no need for them to do so in SG. That's why I call it as part of the Gov system and an eyewash. Have a good Saturday Night. Cheers. -
To me, it is more like hogwash.Originally posted by Archirodon:Don't get me wrong as to think I'm one of the union or the Gov people. I'm not. I do agree that the unions in SG is not doing as much as the their counterparts of other countries because there is no need for them to do so in SG. That's why I call it as part of the Gov system and an eyewash. Have a good Saturday Night. Cheers. -
You are just stereo typing the role of unions. Look at what SG was like during the 50s and 60s where the unions were then very active. Or perhaps you were still in liquid form. Go run to your Dad or Granddad and ask him what happened during the Hock Lee Bus riots where unions were then very active.
Steeotype? The role of the union whether it is in the 50s or 60s or 2000s is still the same- primary to serve the interest of the workers and not looking for foreign investment.Isn't it the interest of the workers in SG to stay employed or employable. Ensuring that jobs are available and good employer-employee relationship the interest of the workers/employee? Don't be so naive to interprete Unions' role as fighting with the Gov... You were lucky to be born in a the present time when SG is so successful. You were lucky not to have tasted poverty. I believe you are too young to understand what life is. Do visit countries like Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, see for yourself how lucky you were today. Haizzz....
I never interpret the role of the union as fighting the govt. And I am never interpreting the role of the union so simply and naively as you did.BTW, I'm old enough to be your father if not Grandfather. Want to celebrate Father's Day with me?
If you want to play the role of father or Grand-old-man here go ahead. I will sit back and let you be. But real mature men would not present themselves the way you did. -
Is there a worker union in singapore?
-
Archirodon,Originally posted by Archirodon:You can put it that way if you like. The ultimate point is still for the interest of our workers and employees, and that is staying employed and get paid.
Really, the role of the Unions is not really that important in SG because there are other legislation to safe guard the employees' interest and welfare. Eg, The Employment Act, The Workmen Compensation Act, The Factories Act, The Industrial Relations Act... etc These will ensure that there are common playing field for both employers and employees. At least for the lower rung employees.
Don't get me wrong as to think I'm one of the union or the Gov people. I'm not. I do agree that the unions in SG is not doing as much as the their counterparts of other countries because there is no need for them to do so in SG. That's why I call it as part of the Gov system and an eyewash. Have a good Saturday Night. Cheers.
you are old enough to be my father too, i guess... but the age difference does not discount the importance of educated opinion. Unfortunately, to support it's contentious union claim, the govt has made use of appeal to people's emotions to historical events in the 1960s: "What happened then could happen now (in the same form)." And that blatantly contradicts the other statement they like using, which says "We live in a rapidly-changing world." Now is different from Then, so why would what happened then occur now in similar form? But anyway...
1) The Employment Act has been cosntantly seen as the mother of all restrictive labour laws, since it is precisely THAT act which caused the dissolution of independent unions.
2) The Workmen Compensation Act: Interestingly, the latest report over the weekend was something abt workers not being compensated properly in CPF. I wonder... does that Act provide immunity to the government?
3) The Industrial Relations Act provides the role and the functions for the Industrial Arbitration Court, which is often the talk because it usually rules in favour of the employer. Does that provide equal ground?
4) Lastly, why is it that ST is frequently running articles about employee abuse if all this laws are suppsoed to be so effective in safeguarding teh employees' interest.
5) Lastly, the Union itself is headed by a government official, so won't it most likely act in the government's interest?
the skeptical pikamaster -
Hello Pikamaster,
Good to see you back again after a holiday.
The administration of Industrial Relations Act itself is hush hush. There are many consultants trying to help employees or unions but they have nothing to rely on except in administrative aspects of disputes.
The employees are generally divided into two categories, i.e. unionised and non-unionised, protectable and non-protectable.
While benefits for unionized category are curtailed by non-provisions of rights like right to take industrial actions, the large number of non-protectable (secretarial and executive or of incomes above certain cut-off) have to fight for themselves with no one representing their interests.
This is the apathetic state of our labour and industrial protections as simple as this. There is no recourse except to take up legal action if say your employer decided not to honour employment contract. How many employees are in the position to spend legal fees (S$5,000-$12,000) to claim for 13th month not paid or termination on alleged conduct problem without proper hearing. -
Looks like education has done more damage than good to you. You just couldn't think out of the box to see what is good or bad. Guess these are just some failure of our education system. They limit your brains. You are only suitable to be an employee.Originally posted by pat33:If you want to play the role of father or Grand-old-man here go ahead. I will sit back and let you be. But real mature men would not present themselves the way you did.
So what if the unions are fighting for your rights when all the employers pack and leave SG. It's really pathetic to see our new generations brains being limited to their so call knowledge. Ya, while u sit back and let me enjoy my father's day, do yourself a favour and reflect on your ....... you know what lah... -
1) The Employment Act provides for the basic platform for employers and employees to follow, however, the more critical document is your letter of appointment or employment contact. It states the terms and conditions of employemnt. If you don't agree that terms and conditions then forget about the job. It is still your rights not to sign the document. So what dissolutions are you talking about?Originally posted by pikamaster:Archirodon,
you are old enough to be my father too, i guess... but the age difference does not discount the importance of educated opinion. Unfortunately, to support it's contentious union claim, the govt has made use of appeal to people's emotions to historical events in the 1960s: "What happened then could happen now (in the same form)." And that blatantly contradicts the other statement they like using, which says "We live in a rapidly-changing world." Now is different from Then, so why would what happened then occur now in similar form? But anyway...
1) The Employment Act has been cosntantly seen as the mother of all restrictive labour laws, since it is precisely THAT act which caused the dissolution of independent unions.
2) The Workmen Compensation Act: Interestingly, the latest report over the weekend was something abt workers not being compensated properly in CPF. I wonder... does that Act provide immunity to the government?
3) The Industrial Relations Act provides the role and the functions for the Industrial Arbitration Court, which is often the talk because it usually rules in favour of the employer. Does that provide equal ground?
4) Lastly, why is it that ST is frequently running articles about employee abuse if all this laws are suppsoed to be so effective in safeguarding teh employees' interest.
5) Lastly, the Union itself is headed by a government official, so won't it most likely act in the government's interest?
the skeptical pikamaster
2) Workmen Compensation don't contribute anything to CPF lah... In fact, it has nothing to do with CPF. It is a compensation system for injuries or loss of capacity to earn a living lah....
3) Industrial Relation Act - It always rules in favour to employer? Sure or not? Check with the MOM's Mediation Officers lah... In most cases they don't even need this Act unless both parties disagree to the mediations.. Don't ngup tuck chute chao ngup (Cantonese)...
4) You sure ST always publish workers abuse? Strangely, don't remember reading any of these. If you are referring to maids, haiz.... you are pathetic too.
5) As for this point, go read my first posting lah... Our unions role is different for other countries unions role. Therefore they have to re-invent themselves to make them relevant. I even mention they are not needed in Sg.
This topic is asking what is the role of Unions In Singapore? My point is they are different for other countries unions and they have to reinvent themselves to stay relevant and they are just a Gov system or you can even call it an instrument. I also call it an eyewash in my context.
And you sure is skeptical though. -
Is there a really worker's union in singapore?Originally posted by Archirodon:Our unions role is different for other countries unions role. Therefore they have to re-invent themselves to make them relevant. I even mention they are not needed in Sg. -
-
Mr Archidoron,Originally posted by Archirodon:
The point is: A union is not meant to be part of the government system; it is not meant to be a government ministry. In fact, what gives a union credibility is its level of independence from the government. So does Singapore have a real workers' union if the union is nothing but part of the administrative machinery of the government, that is "part of the government system"? And I'm not talking about sterotyping the role of unions; I'm talking about what unions were originally founded for in the 1800s.
Anyway, I have a question: Laws are there for people to follow, so shouldn't teh Employment Act lay down the boundaries for what is appropriate for employment contracts to contain? Because if not, then what protection does it provide for workers?
the still-skeptical pikamaster -
Hello pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:Mr Archidoron,
The point is: A union is not meant to be part of the government system; it is not meant to be a government ministry. In fact, what gives a union credibility is its level of independence from the government. So does Singapore have a real workers' union if the union is nothing but part of the administrative machinery of the government, that is "part of the government system"? And I'm not talking about sterotyping the role of unions; I'm talking about what unions were originally founded for in the 1800s.
Anyway, I have a question: Laws are there for people to follow, so shouldn't teh Employment Act lay down the boundaries for what is appropriate for employment contracts to contain? Because if not, then what protection does it provide for workers?
the still-skeptical pikamaster
After so many postings and replies, you must have been blurred and confused. I did not support the view that a union can be part of the Gov or a Gov ministry. I mentioned in my earlier postings "the Gov had made the unions as part of their system or even an instrument to lead Sg into becoming a first world country." It is very different. I hope you can see the difference.
I mentioned the unions have to reivent itself to stay relevant. Sg is a small little dot. We do not have any natural resources to sustain our economy. We only have humans. Therefore, we depend alot on foreign investments to create jobs and bring in revenues to enjoy what we have today. It is not about individuals, it is about the survival of a country without natural resources. We have to view it from a higher perspective, at national level. Xian You Guo, Zai You Wo (mandarin).
I certainly agree that the unions should fight for the rights and interest of their union members. Isn't part of the unions role to ensure employment and a harmonious employer/employee relationship? If our unions encourage strikes, boycott, downtools... etc when they don't get what they want, what is going to happen to SG? We are leading towards Armagadon. So what if the unions can reinstate your jobs, so what if the you get a fat bonus or compensation, so what if the unions win all the grievenaces and cases for the union members? The employers/investors pack and leave SG. Therefore, the unions must not follow traditions but reivent itself to stay relevant.
I had taken the trouble to make my point as clear as before. I hoped pat33 can also read and understand what I'm saying and not asked for the age and whether study or not. That's inmature for a start.
-
Thank you robertteh, this is the point I am trying to raise. With more manufacturing moving out of Singapore, and more low end jobs on contract basis, more management and white collared jobs in Singapore, the number of employees eligible to be "Unionise and protectable" has drastically reduced till such a point that Unions seems to be redundant. They should evolve or "reinvent" themselves to suit the current situation.Originally posted by robertteh:The employees are generally divided into two categories, i.e. unionised and non-unionised, protectable and non-protectable.
While benefits for unionized category are curtailed by non-provisions of rights like right to take industrial actions, the large number of non-protectable (secretarial and executive or of incomes above certain cut-off) have to fight for themselves with no one representing their interests.
This is the apathetic state of our labour and industrial protections as simple as this. There is no recourse except to take up legal action if say your employer decided not to honour employment contract. How many employees are in the position to spend legal fees (S$5,000-$12,000) to claim for 13th month not paid or termination on alleged conduct problem without proper hearing. -
Mr Archidoron, [numbers reflect position of paragraphs in your previous post]Originally posted by Archirodon:Hello pikamaster,
After so many postings and replies, you must have been blurred and confused. I did not support the view that a union can be part of the Gov or a Gov ministry. I mentioned in my earlier postings "the Gov had made the unions as part of their system or even an instrument to lead Sg into becoming a first world country." It is very different. I hope you can see the difference.
I mentioned the unions have to reivent itself to stay relevant. Sg is a small little dot. We do not have any natural resources to sustain our economy. We only have humans. Therefore, we depend alot on foreign investments to create jobs and bring in revenues to enjoy what we have today. It is not about individuals, it is about the survival of a country without natural resources. We have to view it from a higher perspective, at national level. Xian You Guo, Zai You Wo (mandarin).
I certainly agree that the unions should fight for the rights and interest of their union members. Isn't part of the unions role to ensure employment and a harmonious employer/employee relationship? If our unions encourage strikes, boycott, downtools... etc when they don't get what they want, what is going to happen to SG? We are leading towards Armagadon. So what if the unions can reinstate your jobs, so what if the you get a fat bonus or compensation, so what if the unions win all the grievenaces and cases for the union members? The employers/investors pack and leave SG. Therefore, the unions must not follow traditions but reivent itself to stay relevant.
I had taken the trouble to make my point as clear as before. I hoped pat33 can also read and understand what I'm saying and not asked for the age and whether study or not. That's inmature for a start.
1) point taken. yes, I see the difference. Pardon me, but I thought, from teh content and tone of your post, that you were supporting that. Becuase what I read of what you wrote reminds me strongly of govt propaganda.
2) I agree we do not have natural resources i.e. physical capital. But I'm beginning to think that unlike what PAP has been brainwashing us to think for the last 40 yrs, human capital/resource is not our only resource. We have cultural capital as well, a rich history beyond PAP years. If only we could use that.. Unions have tor einvent themselves, just like everything else, including religious bodies and the government, and when I talk about reinvention of government, i mean doing a change to the administrative system, and not merely shuffling faces between civil service, private sector management and cabinet. But when you reinvent yourself, you still need to stay true to your original aim, 'cos tt is the purpose of reinvention: to allow yourself to achieve your aim more easily. Reinvention does not mean changing your basic thrust. the fact is, we would not have to depend so much on foreign investment, if we built up our domestic industries. That, I think, was one of the flaws in PAP's otherwise-perfect economic development plan. They went into a frenzy inviting and selling Singapore to MNCs, such that by today Singapore has become the slave of all the MNCs it hired. A nation is not defined by a Parliament House, a set of ministerial buildings, and the Istana. It is defined as the community of people within a particular geographical region, and a community is made up of individuals. Because of this very elementary fact, I have stopped believing in the slogan "nation above society, society above self", at least in its first part, because both are synonymous; it's pure tautology, unless of course the govt is trying to make itself semi-divine.
3) I don't blame you for your fear of "traditional unions". That's what we are told constantly over and over again by Straits Times or other government agents, or in school textbooks (if you're a pre-NS student like I am). But let's take a look at the real world in the 21st Century, not in the 1960s and 1970s. More specifically, let's look at Scandinavia. In Finland and Norway, workers are allowed to strike, boycott and so on and so forth, but yet those two countries have the highest levels of industrial peace throughout the continent. These methods usually do not get beyond the negotiating table. And I have not read about investors leaving these two countries yet. In fact, these two countries have favourable comments from investors! No armageddon so far... Besides, employers know that a productive workforce is essential for commercial success, and satisfying workers' wants will usually lead to improved productivity.
4) And after all that, how do you think unions should reinvent themselves?
the pikamaster