• 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.

Does the labour chief know labour laws?

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Does the labour chief know labour laws?


Last week, the DBS Bank carried out a two-day retrenchment exercise of 900 employees, invoking sharp criticism from NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, who is also a PAP cabinet minister.

Airing his disappointment, Mr Lim said that the bank had not sought prior consultation with its union counterpart - the DBS Staff Union - of which he is an advisor but does he realise that its move, while leaving much to be desired, isn't entirely its fault, for it had to keep within the ambit of the very laws set by the PAP government itself?

Based on the Industrial Relations Act, Part III, Section 18, Sub-section 2:

"[...] no trade union of employees may include in a notice setting out proposals for a collective agreement a proposal in relation to any of the following matters: [...] (d) the termination by an employer of the services of an employee by reason of redundancy or by reason of the reorganisation of an employer’s profession, business, trade or work or the criteria for such termination; [...]"

Further below, the clause in Section 29 states:

"Any person who or any trade union which enters into negotiations in relation to industrial matters otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Part [...] shall be guilty of an offence."

How is the DBS able to broach a taboo topic, avoid the challenge of contravening the PAP government-made laws and adopt a consultative approach towards the PAP-affiliated NTUC at the same time, despite my view that the brickbat was well-deserved.

Discussions on rationale for retrenchments have long been discouraged at the level of rank-and-file unionists and is what has been taught in Singapore's industrial relation courses, which is why a landmark proposal of the Workers' Party way back in the 2006 general election manifesto stated:

"Instead of just negotiating on retrenchment benefits, trade unions should be allowed to discuss with the management the rationale for retrenchments. This would enable unions to be involved and explore with the management if an alternative solution might be viable."
- WP Manifesto 2006, Chapter 14: Labour Policy and CPF


As if in immediate response, the Ministry of Manpower, through Minister of State for Manpower Gan Kim Yong, announced an initiative to review existing guidelines for retrenchments.

Firstly, why does the government not amend the laws to allow unions more say in retrenchments instead of strengthening non-imposable guidelines and creating potential stalemates.

Would this end up like the political freedom cases where activists would take the constitutional argument and the police, the legalistic argument.

Secondly, why now, when at the first dawn of the economic crisis in 1998, several companies, with Seagate being most prominent, started massive retrenchment exercises as early as in 1999, with the union umbrella's blessings.

The NTUC appeared to support their moves because it wanted to preserve the survival of these companies or prevent them from shifting their operations to cheaper alternatives overseas.

Did it ensure those companies then were not retrenching as the first resort?

Do the unions now not fear that the DBS may move a large part of its functions overseas?

To put matters in perspective, Mr Lim said unions are still not against retrenchments except that they merely wanted to be consulted.

Therefore, if the DBS had informed that they were not retrenching as the first resort, 900 employees would still be axed, so what difference would it make?

Just for labour leaders to feel important for being consulted?

http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/2008/11/does-labour-chief-know-labour-laws.html
 
Top