• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The crushing of trade unions and workers’ woes – Part 1

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
33,627
Points
0
[h=2]The crushing of trade unions and workers’ woes – Part 1[/h]
PostDateIcon.png
August 20th, 2012 |
PostAuthorIcon.png
Author: Contributions



The online Cambridge Dictionary defines a trade union as “an organisation that represents the people who work in a particular industry, protects their rights and discusses their pay and working conditions with employers.”

In Singapore however, the Trade Unions Act clearly defines a trade union as “any association of workmen or employers, whether temporary or permanent, whose principal objective is to regulate relations between workmen and employers for all or any of the following reasons:


  1. To promote good industrial relations between workers and employers;
  2. To improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social statuses;
  3. To achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore.


The Act contradicts the meaning in the dictionary by including employers in a trade union. It is further supported by the sole trade union centre in Singapore, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), having three employers’ associations under its umbrella of 61 affiliated unions.
To make a further mockery of the dictionary definition of a trade union, a cabinet minister helms the union congress as its secretary-general, albeit in a personal capacity. The NTUC clearly goes against the Trade Unions Act by stating that it is a tripartite alliance of workmen, employers and the Government.

The NTUC has backed the so-called success of such an organization by claiming it as “the driving force behind Singapore’s economic and social development.”

Not quite the social accord if we read the statistics. According to the Ministry of Manpower’s website, the latest statistics regarding unionised trade disputes show that in 2009, there were 187 such disputes referred for conciliation, a sharp increase from 103 in 2008.

The bulk of these were caused by issues regarding wages and conditions of benefit, retrenchment benefits, bonus and gratuity issues, and other industrial matters such as sales commissions and shift allocations.

To make matters worse, there were also five unionized trade disputes that were referred for arbitration, the highest number since 2005.

Union leaders and employers in Singapore serve on key institutions such as the National Wages Council (NWC), the Economic Development Board, the Central Provident Fund Board and the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board.
 Government and employer representatives also give the benefit of their experience to the labour movement, by serving on the boards of their cooperatives, business ventures and other organizations in the NTUC family.

A labour movement, technically, should be fully represented by employees. It defeats the purpose implicit in its name when we have Government and employer representatives in its ranks, as differences in views and objectives will arise, giving birth to internal conflicts, and nullifying the movement’s purpose.

Of course, the NTUC will refute such claims, as there are laws in place to deal with the discontentment of employees. For example, we have the Trade Disputes Act (Cap 331) that declares industrial action, strikes and lockouts under certain violent circumstances to be illegal, which is logical, in order to maintain law and order.

However, just when workers think that non-violent demonstrations, peaceful strikes or lock-downs are perfectly legitimate in expressing their protests, objections and emotions, another legislation comes in – Part 3 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67). It clearly states that police officers, personnel appointed by ministers, or even the armed forces may be deployed to deal with people holding banners, shouting slogans or disturbing public peace.

So workers who are allowed, prima facie, to carry out peaceful demonstrations, strikes and lock-downs under the Trade Disputes Act are caught by another law that criminalises public assembly, carrying of banners and recitation of slogans.

Political affiliations of union workers and leaders, besides those that support the ruling party, are also shunned upon, and severely dealt with.
In 1961 when Singapore was still under British rule, the late David Marshall, the first Chief Minister of our country called Singapore a tiga suku busuk merdeka (three-quarters rotten independence) state. At that time, the dominant Singapore Trades Union Congress split into two factions. One, a left-wing union, called the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, led by Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis (BS); and the other union, NTUC, led by the pro-Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) faction.

Not long after, in 1963, the BS leadership, including union leaders like Jamit Singh who had previously gone door to door canvassing for PAP votes, along with students’ union leaders, newspaper editors, and other influential left-wing personalities accused of propagating communism were incarcerated in Operation Cold Store, under the controversial and internationally condemned Internal Security Act. Recently, declassified British documents have revealed that Lim Chin Siong was not a communist.

Almost 50 years later, as Singapore continues to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, alternative political participation by unionists under the NTUC is still frowned upon. In 2002, Muhammad Ali Amin, a branch chairman of the United Workers of Electronic and Electrical Industries, an affiliate of the NTUC, was expelled after he refused to resign over ties with the opposition.

Even the most passive form of disagreement, the one through vote, was not spared state interference when the Government amended the Trade Unions Act in 2003 in a bid to further restrict members’ rights after the Air Line Pilots’ Association-Singapore had voted to sack its entire leadership in light of controversial wage cuts imposed by the SIA.

Indeed, Singapore’s post-independence history is littered with clampdowns on workers’ rights and the dismantling of independent trade unions. In Part II, I will discuss ways to reform our labour movement.
.
Jagwinder Singh
* Jagwinder Singh is a member of The Young Democrats.
 
[h=2]The crushing of trade unions and workers’ woes Part 2[/h]
PostDateIcon.png
August 30th, 2012 |
PostAuthorIcon.png
Author: Contributions

NTUC-logo.jpg


Followed by Part I, another example of the undermining of employees’ rights is the make-up of the National wages Council (NWC) which, like the NTUC, is a tripartite organization consisting, again, of employee, employer and government representatives. The exact proportion of these representatives in the council is unavailable on the Internet.

Recently, the NWC introduced guidelines for salary increments in low-wage jobs. They recommended a paltry $50 built-in wage increase for those earning up to $1000, a very minimal increment with regard to the current standard of living.

The five percent increase in the wages of one of the lowest income groups contrasts sharply against the 13.81 percent increase in GDP per capita from the previous year.

The NTUC echoed support for the disgraceful wage increment, raising doubt and suspicion as to whom the organisation is really representing. There is also the silence on the matter of minimum wage, a far cry from neighbouring Malaysia’s gazetted minimum wage sum of RM900 to help its poorer citizens out of poverty and to cope with the rising cost of living.

Additionally, the lack of retrenchment benefits to provide support help for workers who find themselves retrenched is also disturbing. It is not surprising that the NTUC has not taken an active approach towards this issue, despite its claim of being a trade union.

The SDP has recently proposed that the Government pay retrenched workers not covered by their employers 75 percent of their last drawn salary for the first six months. This amount will be reduced to 50 percent during the following six months, and further reduced to 25 percent in the third six months. 

The payments will stop once the individual is re-employed. They will also cease 18 months after one’s retrenchment if the individual is still not employed by then. This will prevent a culture of welfare dependence from taking root. A cap will also be placed on the amount that any retrenched worker is paid.

Furthermore, under the SDP’s proposal each worker will be allowed to reject only up to three job offers in the one-and-a-half years of the entitlement program following which, as stated, the retrenchment benefit ceases. The NTUC should consider adopting this proposal for the benefit of the 550,000 members it represents as of 2010.

Looking at the lack of real representation of workers’ voices under the NTUC, I would like to propose a five-point proposal that may reform the NTUC and usher in a more progressive and democratic system of trade unions.


  • Disallow employer and Government representation in the NTUC, so that the workers will have a heightened platform to drive forth their proposals, based on the issues they themselves face.
  • Encourage a democratic culture of allowing unionists to align themselves with political parties of their choice, whose policies and ideas they feel best represent their interests, without prejudice.
  • Allow liberal trade unions that may be under-represented in the NTUC owing to their low numbers to be registered independently and to report their grievances/concerns directly to the related Government bodies.
  • Amend Part 3 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67) to allow discontented workers under the NTUC or any other union to organise and hold rallies, strikes and lockdowns of a civil and non-violent nature, before reconciliation or settling disputes in arbitration courts which tend to pacify and dilute the severity of the cases and prevent the general population and, to a certain extent, even the Government from coming to unbiased conclusions.
  • Reorganise the NWC to comprise equal numbers of employee and employer representatives, while, again, excluding Government representatives, with proposals from both sides to be put up for serious debates in Parliament, eventually having the successful proposals passed into law.
The economy of any country is built on the backbone of its workforce. It is therefore essential to look after the welfare of workers lest the backbone break, crippling the nation’s social and economic progress.
.
Jagwinder Singh

* Jagwinder Singh is a member of The Young Democrats.
 
All dictatorships seek to control/restrict the following three things:

1) Labour unions
2) Newspapers and tv/radio
3) Freedom of assembly

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's most probably a duck.
 
All dictatorships seek to control/restrict the following three things:

1) Labour unions
2) Newspapers and tv/radio
3) Freedom of assembly

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's most probably a duck.

4) a bunch of useless emasculated citizens
 
Back
Top