miniddy7的部落格

There's resistance from companies and industry associations but labour chief Lim Swee Say still believes the progressive wage model is workers' best hope for better payTHE flipcharts remain.迷你倉最平 Diagrams are still sketched. But the energy of the past has waned.On a quiet weekday evening, in a room on an otherwise silent floor of the labour movement's One Marina Boulevard building, labour chief Lim Swee Say's usual optimism is tempered by more than a tinge of weariness. He wants better pay for workers through a vehicle called progressive wage model. But not all firms are keen."I can't force them, right? I'm not the director of HR of all these companies," he notes bluntly, after outlining his thoughts through sketches on flipcharts.It has been more than a year since he introduced the model with much enthusiasm, drawing and cajoling. The scheme was, in the eyes of many, the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC) response to calls for a minimum wage. It has career "ladders" which workers can scale by gaining skills and being productive, and pay benchmarks to push their salaries up, relying on persuasion rather than legislation.But the sparkle has dimmed. As the model relies on consensus, it can stall. And it did last month, when two industry groups in the security sector baulked at the proposed $1,000 basic pay for guards - $200 more than the median.The NTUC's talks with the Singapore National Employers Federation, the security groups, and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) continue. But the incident raises the question: If firms refuse to come on board, how far can the progressive wage model go?A leg up the ladderONE of the aims of the model is to raise wages for the workers who earn the least.Such workers have been making headlines amid worries over inequality and stagnating pay. Last year, veteran economist Lim Chong Yah put forth a three-year plan to hike pay by 15 to 20 per cent a year for those earning below $1,500, in what was later called his "shock therapy" idea.MOM figures from 2002 to 2012 show incomes flatlining for the bottom fifth, rising less than 0.1 per cent a year after accounting for inflation.But a closer look shows that salaries fell in the first half of the decade, then recovered. From 2007 to 2012, pay rose 0.9 per cent each year after inflation.The NTUC wants to push pay up even more, and has focused on the cleaning, security, and landscaping sectors as that is where most low-wage workers are.The method of choice: sectorwide licensing and accreditation. That is because firms in these sectors compete to provide outsourced services such as cleaning and security. Those that pay workers more could thus be disadvantaged against low-cost rivals.The first target was the cleaning sector. And the NTUC hit its mark: all cleaning firms will have to adopt the model next year.This is when licensing becomes mandatory for the industry - and one requirement thereof is adopting the progressive wage model.Yet this coup might be hard for the NTUC to replicate in security and landscaping, for it requires the agreement of industry - likely to be hard to get, given the security sector's slow progress.The alternative is accreditation. Firms' clients are the deciding factor, and the NTUC will have to convince them to favour accredited firms, with the wages model, over others, says Mr Lim.But National University of Singapore economist Hui Weng Tat thinks it is unrealistic to expect these clients,concerned about their bottom lines, to care.This difference between compulsory licensing and voluntary accreditation highlights a key weakness of the progressive wage model: with rare exceptions such as cleaning, it cannot be enforced."Employers are not compelled to adopt the recommended starting wages unless these are also legislated," notes Professor Hui.Why not just have a statutory minimum wage, he asks.To that, the Government's response has long been that an artificially high minimum wage could result in unemployment instead.Mr Lim takes the point that the NTUC wage model lacks the force of a mandatory minimum wage.But he argues that this system is "more than minimum wage", saying: "What we have is a minimum wage l迷你倉dder, not a minimum wage point." A minimum wage brings workers to that level but no higher. In contrast, the progressive wage model sets a minimum for each rung of the career ladder.In cleaning, for instance, it suggests at least $1,000 for general or indoor cleaners, at least $1,200 for outdoor cleaners, and so on.Of course, there is still the argument that a wage ladder is no use if firms are not forced to follow it.But Mr Lim is realistic about the feasibility of legislating his model. "There is no country in the world that can pass a law to require every company to put in place a skills ladder, a productivity ladder," he says.One company at a timeIN OTHER industries, the problem of compliance is even greater.Without industrywide licensing or accreditation regimes, the NTUC has to go firm by firm. Some sectors are admittedly easier to convince than others.Government backing helps. In public health care, the Ministry of Health has been involved in the model's implementation since its launch in September last year. By this August, 2,500 health-care support staff got pay rises of 10 per cent.The next best thing is a cooperative industry giant. NTUC First Campus is the largest player in childcare, and the first to adopt the model there.But in the absence of deep government involvement or helpful big players, attempts at persuasion are less effective.For a start, firms might prefer to have their own models."Some companies endorse the principles behind it but have their own unique career pathways for their employees," says SNEF executive director Koh Juan Kiat.But if such firms pay better than suggested, then as Mr Lim puts it: "If they say, 'My ladder is better than your ladder', I say 'Thank you'."Instead, the problem is when firms do not pay at suggested levels, and do not want to. The main sticking point: costs. The NTUC says that increasing productivity should allow firms to pay more.But as such measures take time to bear fruit, firms may be cautious, says UniSIM economist Randolph Tan: "They would prefer their productivity efforts to show results first."No teeth? No problemAS A "policy", the progressive wage model may look ineffectual. Any progress is likely to be slow. But Mr Lim accepts this pace, suggesting another perspective: "We look at it as the next phase of the wage system in Singapore."What were earlier phases like? Well, it took Singapore over 15 years to move away from seniority-based pay, and over 10 years to adopt flexible wages, notes Mr Lim. In both cases, change came via tripartite wrangling and shifting norms, not legislation.Outside the low-wage sectors, the company-by-company approach has to apply for the progressive wage model, too, he says.In this context, the model's lack of teeth is unsurprising. The implication is that higher pay will take a while. But economists say firms, at least, will benefit - not least small firms, which would be hit hardest if the model were compulsory. "The voluntary nature of the scheme provides firms with more flexibility," says NUS economist Davin Chor. The model "is the best that can be done, short of the Government actually instituting an official minimum wage".Yes, firms might not comply. But "what we can nevertheless hope for is that the progressive wage becomes a norm that gets gradually adopted over time".And there is reason for workers to take heart. Even without the teeth that legislation could provide, firms face pressure of another sort - the tight labour market.The energy returns to Mr Lim's voice as he says: "We believe the environment will become more and more conducive and supportive of (the model), because we are slowing down our workforce growth." Firms will face increasing competition for good workers."And in line with that, companies that put in place this progressive wage model will be in a better position to attract good workers," concludes the labour chief.Yes, he hopes the progressive wage model can set new norms. But for him, market pressure is more reliable than the hope that bosses will "all wake up one morning" and decide to pay more."I live in the real world," he says with a wry smile.janiceh@sph.com.sgtohyc@sph.com.sg儲存