Support for the Employment (Amendment) Bill

Sir, I stand in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is an improvement of the current Employment Act. However, the Bill does not appear to be updated sufficiently to take into consideration the nature of the emerging workforce in the new economy. It also does not incorporate any aspiration for a more inclusive workforce.

In this regard, I would like to urge MOM to strengthen the safety net for five groups of employees through the Employment Act and also other measures through its partners, such as the union. The employee groups I hope MOM can further support are one, employees with a portfolio of jobs and employers in the gig economy; two, employees in outsourced functions; three, Baby Boomer Seniors; four, low-skilled elderly workers; and five, employees with disabilities.

First, the nature of the emerging workforce. Several years ago, Silicon Valley-based IT solutions firm, INTUIT, predicted that 40% of the American workforce, will be independent workers – freelancers, contractors and temporary employees – by 2020. The data that is just distributed today by the Ministry also reflect an increasing trend.

In the economy of today, work which once meant years of commitment to a single vocation, to a single career path to a single worksite or even one employer, is undergoing transformation. Depending on the work arrangements and relationship between a service provider and his paymasters, one can be labelled an employee – a permanent, temporary, full-time or part-time employee – or an independent contractor who could be self-employed, freelance and on-call. The lines between a regular employee and a regular freelancer or independent contractor, and between contracts of service and contracts for service are blurring and overlapping.

Employees with a portfolio of multiple employers and jobs. More entrants to workforce in the gig or on-demand economy are becoming what management guru Charles Handy call the portfolio employees. They are a new collared employee group who could be in traditional blue or white-collared jobs, working for several employers and engaging in what is known as a portfolio of jobs. These are the new collared employees with multiple employers, serving at alternate different worksites, on or offline, and expected to deliver work based on either time spent, outcomes achieved or a blend of both time and outcomes. They could be, for example, an IT manager who works for several SMEs or an occupational therapist who spreads her workweek across several schools or clinics, or a cleaner who regularly cleans different homes on different workdays.

Sir, the Bill is silent on how the new legislation can ensure that this emerging group of employees with a portfolio of multiple employer and a portfolio of multiple work will enjoy an overall fair and employment package, and if there is provision to ensure that all the said employers will be jointly or severally liable for the entitlement provisions in matters, such as leave benefits, hospitalisation, medical or insurance.

In instances, for example, of a medical emergency or a fatal accident, would employees with multiple employers be protected and provided for, or would this duty be pushed amongst the different employers? These portfolio employees, will they be adequately covered or protected? What about the skills development of this category of staff for whom no single employer may feel responsible to ensure the relevance of their skills? What is the update from the Ministry on essential portable benefits, such as healthcare, workmen's compensation and disability insurance that are not tied to traditional full-time employment? Can these benefit employees with multiple employers and be delivered through, for example, a coordinating agency in Government or can there be other forms of mechanism to ensure that they are protected?

Next, on employees in outsourced functions. Sir, as companies continue with the trend of outsourcing functions that are not their core, such as in administration, in cleaning or security, there emerges in the labour market another group of employees whose rights may not be sufficiently protected or provided for. These are the staff of contractors who won these outsourced functions. I have heard of contracts where employment agents require that they compensate the agency in cases of resignation, on top of the notice required for resignation. Who watches over these contracts and who watches over these workers in the lower end of the food chain? As more and more work is being outsourced, mechanisms need to be devised to coach and monitor the main labour contractors to ensure that they too comply with the employment legislation and the rights of their workers are protected. 

Next, on the third group, baby boomer seniors. Sir, baby boomers will dominate the greying population of the developed world. In Singapore, we will see a new breed of senior citizens, those we call the "Merdeka Generation" who are unlike the senior citizens of the past. These baby boomer seniors may not retire at the specified age required. They may not just head for their overseas holidays or karaoke sessions regularly. Instead of retirement, they are likely to hit, what we call "un-retirement", and will want to continue to be actively working either part-time or full-time in their current vocation, or for some, they might want to seek second careers. The current assumptions to reduce CPF rates and to continue with year-on-year contracts subject to employer offers, I think, need to be re-examined. Government ought to review the assumptions governing employees of this new group of senior workers and better tap on this Merdeka workforce who is generally more educated and more skilled than the predecessors.

And next, on the vulnerable. Sir, I continue to urge MOM to promote the employment of Singaporeans who are vulnerable and most at risk in being left behind in our faster, smarter society. These are one, our low-skilled elderly Singaporeans and two, the younger and older Singaporeans with mild to severe disabilities.

On the elderly, there are many Meet-the-People (MPS) cases that I have been involved with of elderly low-skilled workers who desire to work but they cannot find work, who are not ill or poor enough to qualify for means-testing or receive public welfare. These are seniors who may not be able to grasp the pace of the new economy and whose manual jobs are readily replaced by robots. The Special Employment Credit by Government is a brilliant way to incentivise employers to hire more of these elderly and disabled but there are still many out there requiring support. If legislation is also a reflection of the values of a society, is there a further space within our employment legislation to ensure larger employers, including our Government, to set aside or create jobs for the vulnerable, such as these elderly and even the disabled? I understand the role of job creation may not fall within the direct purview of MOM, but I have worked with Minister Josephine for quite a while and I know she cares for the vulnerable. And I urge MOM under her to extend its influence on partners, such as the union and other work agencies to create a more inclusive workforce.

Lastly, on the disabled or persons with special needs or differently abled. There are many terms for them but I will use the term disabled, not out of this respect, but because I will be referring to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Singapore has signed the UNCRPD on 30 November 2012. The Convention was later ratified in July 2013. I think all these are under the watch of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. By ratification, Singapore is committed to ensuring that the rights and interests of persons with disabilities will be protected like the rest of the population in key areas such as education and employment.

In education, legislation has already been enacted to make compulsory education for children with special needs a reality come next year. It is now time to start working on legislating that employers bear some responsibility in recruiting and developing staff with disabilities. Just as MOE has enhanced its special education branch and the education of students with special education needs in mainstream schools through organisation structure and funds. Other agencies, such as MOM and the union and other related agencies ought to step up and focus on this segment of the workforce.

There can be novel ways to include the disabled in the workforce. To completely leave it to MSF to coordinate with interested Ministries and private partners for jobs for the disabled, I believe, is not committing enough. Some countries have established quotas with varying success. Others have laws to protect discrimination of staff who are vulnerable, for those with disabilities.

In Australia, the Victorian, NSW and Queensland governments have set public service disability employment targets of 6% to 7% as part of an economic participation plan for persons with disabilities. But, of course, it has been found that quota schemes when not properly implemented, can backfire and result in cheating or just lip service in the hiring of the disabled. However, when there is a will, there is a way, as some European countries found. Novel and reformed quota schemes that, for example, allow a quota to be met, not just by direct hire, but by working and encouraging an employer to contract with, for example, a sheltered workshop of the disabled for supplies or services, have seen to be successful. So, these are different ways of including or creating a more inclusive workforce, or ensuring that quota and more enlightened quota schemes can be implemented in our country.

I have served and seen enough in the disability sector to know that just relying on the compassion of employers will not result in the economic integration of disabled workers. Hence, I seek MOM's assistance to take a more active role in including legislation and other support measures to sculpt a more inclusive Singapore workforce.

Start by having Government and larger corporations lead by example and together with other agencies adopt more aggressive efforts to aggregate jobs that will allow them to enjoy the dignity of work by this special workforce.

In conclusion, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill is an improvement of the existing and I fully support it. And I continue to seek the Manpower Ministry and its partners to walk the extra mile to cater to employees in the new gig economy and also to cater to employees who are at risk of being excluded in the Singapore workforce.