- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
MSM’s one sided story on crane protest.
How does a worker show evidence of non-payment? When complaints are made by workers that they are not paid, surely the onus of proof lies with the employer who should produce evidence of payments made in accordance with the Employment Act.
Foreign workers pay huge sums of money to agents to get work In Singapore. When they are deceived by their employers they canonly resort to assistance from the State, and when they are unable to resolve their claims satisfactorily, they may be pushedinto acts of desperation. HOME does not condone acts of desperation or criminal acts that place lives in jeopardy but we hold the position that any punishment should take into account the difficult circumstances under which workers may feel compelled to undertake ‘irrational’ or dangerous actions.
Among other complaints by the workers were verbal threats by their employer and their deplorable living conditions. At the reporter’s request we provided ST with pictures of one of the sites they were living at. HOME questions why no mention was made by ST of the pictures given and also of the fact that there were a total of 3 locations where these workers were housed? The article relied only on the report by MOM that their investigators checked on one site and found the living conditions there to be acceptable.However, there were two other sites that the workers lived in. Were those checked as well? It was also revealed in the article that the MOM investigation team conducted the checks one week after the protest. Why did MOM take one week, by which time the employer would have rectified any irregularities in their living conditions?
- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/03/msms-sided-story-crane-protest/
How does a worker show evidence of non-payment? When complaints are made by workers that they are not paid, surely the onus of proof lies with the employer who should produce evidence of payments made in accordance with the Employment Act.
Foreign workers pay huge sums of money to agents to get work In Singapore. When they are deceived by their employers they canonly resort to assistance from the State, and when they are unable to resolve their claims satisfactorily, they may be pushedinto acts of desperation. HOME does not condone acts of desperation or criminal acts that place lives in jeopardy but we hold the position that any punishment should take into account the difficult circumstances under which workers may feel compelled to undertake ‘irrational’ or dangerous actions.
Among other complaints by the workers were verbal threats by their employer and their deplorable living conditions. At the reporter’s request we provided ST with pictures of one of the sites they were living at. HOME questions why no mention was made by ST of the pictures given and also of the fact that there were a total of 3 locations where these workers were housed? The article relied only on the report by MOM that their investigators checked on one site and found the living conditions there to be acceptable.However, there were two other sites that the workers lived in. Were those checked as well? It was also revealed in the article that the MOM investigation team conducted the checks one week after the protest. Why did MOM take one week, by which time the employer would have rectified any irregularities in their living conditions?
- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/03/msms-sided-story-crane-protest/