The changes to the Employment Act passed in Parliament on 20 November 2018 was done to further improve employment standards and working conditions for workers.
A quick recap: There are four main changes to the Act.
For more details, here is an infographic of the changes.
Before the changes were passed, Members of Parliament (MPs) debated the amendmenst for the second time.
Labour MPs were vocal in their opinions on the amendments, and all were in support of the changes.
Here is what four of them who spoke on the changes had to say.
In his speech, Mr Tay called for employers to work with unions and the Labour Movement to get all their employees to become union members.
“With the removal of the salary cap, companies should have no excuse to prevent unions from representing or organising PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month,” he said.
Mr Tay had been lobbying since 2011 for the Employment Act to cover all PMEs.
“The removal of the salary cap resoundingly signals the raising of employment standards in Singapore by according all workers with protection under the core provisions of the Act and with access to the ECT. This is a radical step forward, given that just a decade ago, PMEs were not even covered under the Act,” said Mr Tay.
Although Mr Zainal supports the raising of the salary threshold for non-workmen, he noticed that the new salary cap at $2,600 seemed to be on the low side, if it is based on the median salary from Manpower Ministry statistics.
He also asked the Manpower Ministry to work with the Health Ministry to see if the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) can be extended to enable all Workfare Income Supplement recipients to receive free outpatient treatment at government polyclinics.
Mr Yong said that more can be done to clearly define the employees who are covered under the Employment Act.
He suggested that the Manpower Ministry and its tripartite partners consider removing the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and PMEs, and to also replace the current distinction between blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and managers with a single inclusive term such as “employees” or simply “workers”.
Mr Yong also called on the Manpower Ministry to remove the arbitrary distinction of rates based on who requested for the work on a rest day. Under the Act, if working on the rest day is asked by the employer, the worker must be paid twice as much, compared to when working on the rest day is requested by the worker.
“We have come across cases where employers have asked their employees to sign statements to declare that working on a rest day is self-requested. This is unfair to the employee,” he said.
According to Mr Yong, if the distinction is removed, unscrupulous employers will be deterred from abusing the system to justify paying the lower rate.
Mr Arasu urged all tripartite partners to continue working closely together to protect the needs of workers and ensure companies continue to remain competitive.
Touching on companies who are going into automation and digitalisation, Mr Arasu urged the Manpower Ministry to work with tripartite partners to educate employers and management.
He also urged companies to work with the unions from the start of planned automation, to take care of their workers holistically, and ensure that tjier jobs a secured if they are able to upgrade to handle new processes and technology.
He also suggested that the Manpower Ministry set tripartite guidelines to guide employers and companies when they move into automation.
