Outlook for Gig and Platform Workers and Measures to Help Enhance Their Employability and CPF Savings

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the concerns that platform companies and gig workers have raised with respect to the suggestion for platform companies to make mandatory CPF contributions for gig workers; (b) whether a survey or poll has been conducted to determine the proportion of gig workers who support such a suggestion; and (c) if so, what are the survey results.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the longer-term job outlook for food delivery riders; and (b) whether there is a need to improve the employability and career planning for food delivery riders.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower given that many freelancers, such as food delivery riders and point-to-point (P2P) drivers, do not determine the fees of services, but leave it to their platform partners' discretion, what are some of the safeguards that will be considered to ensure that these companies comply with their obligations should CPF contributions be made mandatory.

Sir, platform workers face unique conditions at work. They are subject to management control and are not able to set their own fees or remuneration, unlike the typical freelancers that we know. However, compared to employees, they receive lower job protections.

To address this, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers was convened in September last year to look into three key areas of concern, namely: enhancing housing and retirement adequacy, providing financial protection in the event of work injury and strengthening representation.

Since it was convened, the Committee has actively engaged stakeholders through dialogues as well as a public consultation paper. To date, we have reached out to more than 20,000 platform workers and received about 1,200 submissions from them. To Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman’s question, more than half of these submissions touched on CPF contributions, of which, 55% indicated support for the idea of mandatory CPF contributions to platform workers. Housing was the most commonly cited reason for wanting CPF contributions, followed by retirement. This is not surprising, as platform workers today only make CPF contributions to their MediSave Accounts for their healthcare needs. In the coming months, we will continue with our engagement efforts and encourage all stakeholders, including platform workers, to share their views.

The Committee is also aware that other surveys on platform work were commissioned and published recently, some of which were commissioned by the platform companies. These surveys vary in methodology and some have much smaller numbers of respondents. Some of these surveys also did not capture the management controls and challenges that the platform workers face. An independent ethnographic study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on delivery riders found that riders who are keen to earn an income of more than $4,000 a month would likely need to work more than 10 hours a day, for six to seven days a week, cycling at least 60 kilometres to 70 kilometres a day and not reject any assigned orders. They need to maintain long and disciplined hours at work and must certainly be physically fit. There is significant physical and mental stress imposed on these workers.

While the surveys differ in their emphasis and findings, the one consistent feedback they note is that platform workers do experience greater uncertainty and would appreciate some aspects of what employees enjoy, such as the benefit of CPF contributions and work injury compensation.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about how mandatory CPF contributions for platform workers could be implemented. Without prejudging the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, if this is implemented, we will develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance.

Today, platform workers already make mandatory CPF contributions out of their own earnings, although at a lower level of contribution, compared to an employee. The Committee is mindful that if mandatory CPF contribution for platform workers is introduced, platform companies will also have to start making contributions. While this will increase their business costs, it is no worse off than any other company employing workers in a similar sector, such as in logistics and transport. Besides, platform companies already contribute CPF for their management executives and administrative staff today, a point which many of these riders whom I engage with, make as well. They ask the question – as the ones who are bringing in revenue for the companies, risking themselves on the roads – why are they not given some of these basic things that employees working for the companies in the office actually also enjoy.

But at the same time, the Committee is also aware that some platform workers are concerned about the impact on their take-home earnings. This somehow also suggests that platform workers are not as well-paid, as some recent surveys have tried to portray.

Mr Leon Perera and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the profile and longer-term career prospects of platform workers. In 2021, the majority of those who depended on platform work as their main job were older residents aged 50 and over, although delivery workers tended to be slightly younger, with the majority aged below 40. This is not surprising, as riders have to maintain a certain level of physical fitness and toil for many hours a day covering long distances in order to keep their earning levels high, as I had earlier described. The majority, or around 80% of those whose main job is a platform worker, view it as their preferred job. In 2021, 8% of those who depended on platform work as their main job switched to work primarily as an employee – a slight increase from the 5% to 6% in recent years.

We will continue to support platform workers to actively plan their careers and strengthen their employability, while respecting the preference of many to continue in platform work. For those looking for employment opportunities, Workforce Singapore and NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute offer career matching services, including career coaching, employability workshops and job fairs. The Workfare Skills Support Scheme and SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package are also available to them.

Sir, at the height of the pandemic and the circuit breaker, these delivery riders helped maintain our quality of life by risking themselves to meet our needs. Singaporeans have called for more to be done for this group of precarious workers. These are often the forgotten heroes during the pandemic.

So, even as we gradually ease into the endemic phase of our fight against COVID-19, let us not forget the needs of this group of precarious workers. The Committee’s work is still ongoing. As it continues to consult widely and facilitate deeper discussions, we will take in the feedback from platform workers and platform companies. The Committee aims to provide practicable and sustainable recommendations and is considering an appropriate phase-in period to allow the industry to adjust.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Two supplementary questions. Regarding the figure given of 8% who have transitioned to permanent employment, would the Senior Minister of State have any data of the demographic profile of those who moved out of platform work into permanent employment of some sort or other? Are they the older ones or are they the younger ones?

Secondly, given the developments in technology and also the fact that this kind of work that the platform workers do may be harder for older people to do physically, there is a long-term employability concern that the Senior Minister of State alluded to. Would the Government consider, going forward, engaging more proactive communications to these platform workers, make them aware of these challenges and to stimulate them to think more about their long-term career prospects in other industries? There is drone delivery, for example, that is displacing some of these jobs already in some cities.

Sir, the Member rightly pointed out some of the concerns that the Committee is deliberating on. These are the concerns of some of the workers themselves: the fear of autonomous vehicles replacing their jobs and also, for the riders at least, it being such a physically demanding career, there is a question of how they can sustain this over a long period of time and make it a lifelong career. Also, the risk of being injured any day and once you cannot physically subject yourself to that kind of toil anymore, the income would be impacted.

On the other hand, the workers do value the flexibility and autonomy, to some extent, that they have. It is also a job with low barriers to entry and allows them quick access to ready cash to tide over a period of need. So, there are pros and cons. And the Committee would continue to consult and engage our stakeholders.

In terms of encouraging the workers to then look at a career transition, this is something that we have already put in place – some measures and schemes to support them. Ultimately, it is also helping them to raise their awareness of what would make a sustainable career and help them to acquire the skills that are necessary to transit into a sector that may be of interest to them. Skills upgrading is still core to the whole endeavour.

But I think this is a complex issue. The demographics are quite widespread. Different segments of people, different needs. So, I do not think there is a one-size-fits-all strategy that will cater to all and appeal to all of them. I think we need to look at this from a multi-pronged perspective. Therefore, in answer to the first question posed, on what are the demographics of the 8% who may have made the transition, I do not have the full data. My sense is that it is a very disparate group: some could be younger; some could be older; some could be more educated; some, because of their physical conditions, realise they need to transit to something that is less physically demanding. I think it is a broad spectrum, the point being that we need many different things to meet the different needs of different groups of people. It is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all solution, nor a fixed archetype.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what proportion of platform workers are ex-offenders and what steps can be taken to encourage ex-offenders to look at more value-added jobs so that their long-term prospects would be protected?

Sir, the Member asked an important question. We did say that this is a job with low barriers to entry and, unfortunately, I do not think the companies themselves track such data, such as what is the status of this person's jobs before, during or after they join platform work. Because, it is just as simple as downloading an app, getting a simple sign-up and they can start to engage in this kind of work. I think the challenge is in getting this data.

We will try to do some surveys on this but I think it is very hard for us to get very, very accurate data on how many percentage of them are ex-offenders. Not all of them will also engage in this full-time. Some of them are doing it as a supplement. As I have said, the landscape is very diverse and the challenge is to get a true fix. At one point in time, we may get a single snapshot on how many ex-offenders are working in platform work, but they could easily exit the next day. And more may come on the day after. This is where, whatever intervention we design, we need to have that flexibility to cater to the evolving needs of this group of workers.

Upstream intervention, including the Yellow Ribbon project, would be very important to make sure that ex-offenders, before they are re-integrated into society, are already given some degree of skills-training to allow them to, from the outset, look for jobs that are able to sustain them for the longer term and have employers who are prepared to take them on as employees so that there is perhaps less impetus for them to enter platform work as the job of choice when they get out into the rest of society.

I think it takes all stakeholders, including the Singapore Prison Service, including employers who are enlightened, to engage and work with ex-offenders.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if he has any recent data on how many of these platform workers actually make CPF contributions on their own accord.

Sir, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I do not have the actual data. Because at this moment, some of them are doing this only as a very small segment of their working life. So, they could be working on a very casual basis. Thus, they may not, actually, make contributions to CPF, if they are not working in this job as a full-time platform worker.

We are trying to get data from CPF and the platform companies to see if we can get a better sense of it. But our assessment is that probably around 45% or thereabout, are making some CPF contributions. At best, it is probably about half of them doing so. We hope to get clearer data when we engage with the drivers, riders as well as the platform companies.

Would MOM also consider phasing in CPF contributions by platform companies to cushion any price impact on consumers and alleviate any potential adverse impact on the take-home income of our platform workers, which is something that the Labour Movement is, ultimately, the most worried about?

Sir, in my main reply, I did say that the Committee is considering some potential mechanism like a phase-in period. That is probably one way to actually ease the industry into this transition of some CPF contribution, so that the immediate impact on both consumers, platform workers and the business costs of the companies can be managed over time. This is something that the Committee will engage further with the companies and the workers before landing on a fixed recommendation.