Skip to main content

Giving you the right to work for less money


When NTUC says no to same job equal pay it is quite similar to the “Right to Work” laws in the USA.  The “Right to Work” laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labour unions. #1

In US, the union opposes these laws and even President Obama warned the passing of these laws in Michigan State recently:  

"And by the way, what we shouldn't do -- I've just got to say this -- what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions," he added to loud applause from the audience. "We shouldn't be doing that. The so-called 'right-to-work' laws -- they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obama-michigan-right-to-work_n_2272408.html

We know one of the key arguments, for Chinese SMRT bus drivers, is they are CONTRACT workers (reference to first paragraph above). And because of the contractual nature and elements, President Obama said the real talking is giving you the right to work for less money.

You have the right to work under contract for same job but unequal pay.

However, there is big difference here between USA and Singapore. 

In US, the labour union including President Obama strongly opposes the "Right to Work" laws.  While in Singapore, NTUC supports laws and contract employment similar to "Right to Work" laws.  This explains why the wages are low in Singapore and even lower for foreign workers.  Providing employment like the "Right to Work" does not mean more pay, instead as what President Obama have said ‘right to work for less money’.    

This makes our NTUC and the PAP government look more like the Republican Party.  And unfortunately, they are not for the workers, not at side of trade union movement.    

More about "Right to Work" laws:
A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Now we look at the news report from Channelnewsasia:
       
Speaking to reporters, labour chief Lim Swee Say pointed out the idea of equal pay for the same job, will cause a lot of discrepancies, unhappiness and unfairness.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1242837/1/.html

The concept of "Right to Work" in Singapore is ‘same job equal pay will cause discrepancies, unhappiness and unfairness.’  So, if we want to have jobs, and right to work, according to NTUC, we cannot have same job equal pay.

Now you know the NTUC is standing at which side.  No wonder we always say the PAP, the NTUC and the government is ‘3 in 1’ movement.     

As a result, Lim Swee Say has to stress that equal pay for foreign workers will 'disadvantage' locals. 

In the wake of the illegal strike last month by some SMRT bus drivers from China, calls have emerged for equal remuneration for all in the same jobs, but National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) chief Lim Swee Say said that this is "not the way to go", calling the issue a "complicated" and "sensitive" one.
Equal remuneration will "disadvantage" local workers and their families as they have to bear the cost of living here, while the bulk of the money foreign workers earned here is sent back to their home countries, said Mr Lim at a media conference to address migrant workers issues yesterday. http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121215-0000047/NTUC-chief-addresses-migrant-worker-issues

Not only the NTUC cannot protect the equal pay for same job, it also wants exclusiveness as the sole representative of workers here, whether locals or foreigners.  

Asked if Singapore should have a separate union for foreign workers, Mr Lim said no, pointing out that the labour movement should be an inclusive union for all.
"If we do that, we will have different unions for foreign workers, for PMEs and for the older workers. If we go in that direction, social segregation in Singapore will become even worse," he pointed out. http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121215-0000047/NTUC-chief-addresses-migrant-worker-issues

With one union, it is easy for the ‘3 in 1’ to move in the same direction.

So, are we heading for more troubles in employers-employees relationship for same job unequal pay, especially when the union is not at your side?

#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...