Victory to HK bus drivers salaries increased. Pse remember Chinese PRC SMART Driver strike report sick Keng Lao Sai MCin 2012:
Click here for video:
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/video/葉國謙-修憲不等同國家主席任期終身制-153540925.html
九巴周一晤大聯盟商薪酬調整
now.com 影音新聞2018年2月25日
【Now新聞台】九巴管理層明天會就調整薪酬方案與早前發起工業行動的大聯盟會晤發起人葉蔚琳，但其他工會未獲出席。九巴發表聲明，指早前提出的調整薪酬方案是回應員工訴求，有助優化現行制度，強調不會影響年度加薪。
九巴月薪車長大聯盟不滿公司早前提出的薪酬調整方案，周六晚上一度工業行動，直至公司派代表對話，工業行動才結束。
九巴周一會與大聯盟發言人葉蔚琳會面。葉蔚琳周日要上班，但未獲安排開車，改為留在辦公室工作。她表示要為會面的訴求及對策作準備，暫時不接受傳媒訪問。
支援大聯盟的九巴僱員工會主席郭志誠表示，已向資方要求以員工身分加入會面，並擔當見證人的角色。他又希望九巴員工星期一會到場聲援大聯盟。郭志誠又表示，不希望公司懲罰參與工業行動的員工。若公司作出紀律處分，九巴僱員工會不排除會作出進一步行動，包括罷工。
九巴現時共有五個工會，其他四個工會包括九巴職工總會、汽車交通運輸業總工會、九巴員工協會及九巴職員權益工會均無獲邀請參與會面。表明不支持工業行動的汽車交通運輸業總工會重申不認同大聯盟的行為。
而九巴再作補充回應，強調公司提出的薪酬方案是回應員工多年來的訴求，而這個亦非年度加薪，指恆常的薪酬調整機制會如常在三、四月展開。九巴又指方案早獲兩個主要工會支持，而兩個工會代表超過九成員工，強調會一如既往與所有員工保持溝通。
#要聞
">
http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2015-03-11_162308.html
SMRT bus drivers’ strike
Feedback on article
Explore Further
Organisations
Singapore MRT Ltd
Singapore. Ministry of Manpower
~ Recommendations ~
- Little India riot
A riot that lasted about two hours erupted in Little India on Sunday, 8 December 2013, following a fatal traffic accident ...
- 1955 Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association Strike
On 30 April 1955, about 1,300 port workers employed by the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association (SHBSA) went on ...
- Singapore Glass Factory strike
The Singapore Glass Manufacturers Co Ltd was a leading manufacturer of glassware, plastics and cardboard in Singapore. ...
- Curry dispute
On 8 August 2011, local daily freesheet Today published a news feature that mentioned a dispute between a migrant family ...
- Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association
With the port being the cornerstone of Singapore’s economy, the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association (SHBSA) – ...
- National Trades Union Congress
The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) was established on 6 September 1961, with Mahmud Awang as the pro-tem chairman ...
~ Related Pictures ~
On 26 November 2012, 171 bus drivers from public-transport service provider SMRT Corporation Limited (SMRT) refused to go to work, and 88 were absent from work the next day.1 It was the first strike in Singapore since the Hydril strike in 1986. The protestors, who were all Chinese nationals, were aggrieved at the disparity between their wages and those of their Malaysian counterparts. They were also disgruntled at the poor living conditions and how their complaints had been ignored.2 The two-day strike was deemed illegal under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, as the workers had disrupted an essential service without the requisite two weeks’ notice.3 There were delays in some 10 percent of SMRT’s bus services on the first day of the strike, and five percent on the following day.4
Background
Prior to the 1990s, bus drivers in Singapore mainly comprised Singaporeans and permanent residents. Bus operators began employing Malaysians during the 1990s as more Singaporeans attained higher education levels and thus moved towards white-collar jobs. To meet rising passenger numbers and higher service standards, the operators started recruiting from China in 2008 when demand for bus drivers could no longer be fully met by Singaporeans and Malaysians.5
In 2012, SMRT employed some 2,000 bus drivers, about 450 of whom were Chinese nationals.6 The drivers from China were hired under two-year contracts. Housed in dormitories, their accommodation was paid for by SMRT. The Malaysian drivers, on the other hand, were hired on a permanent basis and their terms of employment did not encompass lodging.7
In July 2012, SMRT extended the bus drivers’ mandatory work days from five to six days per week.8 While the drivers still had to meet the minimum 44 hours of work weekly, the move was perceived as a loss in welfare for drivers who preferred an extra day off each week. Those who preferred to earn overtime income were also affected, as the number of days they could do so was reduced from two to one per week.9 In the same month, SMRT raised the basic pay of Chinese nationals by S$75, Malaysians by S$150 and Singaporeans by S$425. Then in October 2012, Singaporean and Malaysian drivers’ basic salary was further increased by S$150 and S$50 respectively, but no pay adjustment was made for the drivers from China.10
The strike
Reasons for the strike
The strike was staged by SMRT bus drivers from China who were unhappy with their monthly basic pay of S$1,075, compared with their Malaysian counterparts’ S$1,400, when the job responsibilities were essentially the same.11 The Chinese nationals were also disgruntled at the living conditions in their dormitories. With 10 to 12 workers in a room, overcrowding was flagged as a problem. In addition, because drivers from different shifts were housed together, rest time for some was disturbed by the movements of others. Some of the beds were also infested with bedbugs.12 According to the strikers, they had previously raised their grievances with their superiors, but resolution to their problems was not forthcoming and employers were said to have been insensitive to their complaints.13
First day of strike
A total of 171 SMRT bus drivers took part in the strike on 26 November 2012.14 The protest began before dawn, when drivers at the dormitory in
Woodlands refused to start their morning shift. By mid-morning, more drivers had travelled from another dormitory in
Serangoon to participate in the sit-in. Later, workers on the afternoon shift also joined in the strike. The police arrived at the Woodlands dormitory at around 10 am. Although riot trucks and some 45 police officers were deployed, no direct police intervention was required.15
Facilitated by officers from the Ministry of Manpower, talks between SMRT management and bus drivers commenced in the afternoon.16 During the mediation session, SMRT proposed a S$25 increment, but the offer was turned down as the drivers sought greater parity with their Malaysian counterparts.17 The talks ended at about 6 pm with SMRT agreeing to get back to the bus drivers on their wage concerns in a week’s time.18 The transport operator also issued a statement that night pronouncing that all bus drivers had agreed to return to work the following day.19
Second day of strike
On 27 November 2012, however, 88 drivers extended the strike into its second day. Some of the strikers indicated that they refused to return to work because they deemed that SMRT’s offer of a S$25 increment to their monthly salary was still too low. Later in the morning, some strikers decided to return to work after hearing that they would be dismissed if they continued to be absent from their job duties. While police officers were also deployed on the second day of the strike, the numbers were smaller than the day before.20
On the same day, the government announced that it deemed the actions of the Chinese nationals as an illegal strike and that police investigations were underway. Under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, it is illegal for workers in essential services to go on strike unless they give employers 14 days’ notice of their intent to go on strike. Public-transport services, including those provided by SMRT, are among the list of essential services covered under the legislation.21
End of strike
The two-day strike came to an end on 28 November 2012, when all bus drivers who went on strike (except six who had valid reasons) returned to work.22
Action against the strikers
On 28 November 2012, 20 SMRT bus drivers who had gone on strike on both days were called in by the police to assist in investigations.23 Five drivers were arrested and subsequently charged in court for instigating the illegal strike.24 The five drivers were sentenced to jail terms between six and seven weeks for their respective charges.25
Another 29 drivers were identified as active participants of the strike.26 This group received stern warnings from the police and their work permits were revoked, following which they were repatriated to China on 2 December 2012.27
The police also issued warnings to some 150 strikers who had returned to work after realising that the strike was illegal. This group was said to be more passive and had shown remorse over their actions. It is also believed that some of them had been pressured into participating in the strike. No further action was taken against this group of drivers and they were allowed to continue working in Singapore.28
Follow-up actions by SMRT
On 28 November 2012, SMRT acknowledged that more could have been done in terms of addressing its bus drivers’ complaints on living conditions, as well as communicating the rationale for the wage disparity between its Chinese and Malaysian drivers. The transport operator, however, maintained that its Chinese and Malaysian workers’ salaries were equitable, as the wage difference was attributed to the cost of the Chinese nationals’ accommodation and utilities.29
On 3 December 2012, the Chinese drivers were informed by SMRT management that the company would limit their wage increase to the S$25 offered in the previous week. The reason for the difference in pay between Chinese and Malaysian drivers was also explained.30 The S$25 increment was described by the management as a goodwill gesture, as the Chinese drivers were not entitled to any wage increase under their two-year contracts.31
SMRT implemented a series of follow-up actions after the incident, including fumigation of dormitory rooms with bedbug complaints, repair of room fixtures and setting up town hall sessions with its bus drivers to address their concerns.32 A 24-hour hotline and an email helpdesk were also set up, and a team of liaison officers formed, so as to enable drivers from China to seek help or provide feedback on work and living conditions.33
In addition, SMRT conducted an internal investigation after the illegal strike, and its Chief Executive Officer Desmond Kuek admitted in December 2012 that the strike could have been avoided if the bus drivers’ supervisors had been more sensitive and responsive to the drivers’ complaints.34 Completed in early 2013, the investigation led to disciplinary action – including issuance of warning letters and dismissal – against those who had failed to exercise their management or supervisory responsibilities properly.35
Role of the union
As the SMRT bus drivers who went on strike were not union members, the National Transport Workers’ Union did not have the legal mandate to represent the workers.36
Before the strike, less than five percent of SMRT’s Chinese drivers were unionised, but a majority of these drivers had joined the labour union by February 2013.37
Author
Cheryl Sim
