Government's Support of Hybrid and Work-from-home Arrangements

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower as companies are encouraged to operate in a hybrid operating model to boost business resilience (a) how will the Ministry support employers to help their employees transit towards this model; and (b) how will the Government encourage organisational dexterity in local companies so that work projects based overseas can be managed remotely from Singapore.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether, beyond the Tripartite Standards or Tripartite Guidelines, the Ministry intends to retain existing work-from-home legislation and make the right to work from home the new normal.

COVID-19 has catalysed a transformation of workplace practices. Businesses have adapted well and successfully implemented work-from-home arrangements. SMEs can also tap on Government grants, such as the Productivity Solution Grant, to adopt suitable cloud-based digital solutions that can enable productive remote work arrangements for their employees.

In 2020, three in four employees worked in firms that provided some form of remote working. The number of hours spent on remote work would vary depending on businesses' and workers' needs and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track this.

We expect work-from-home arrangements to become a more mainstream option. Majority of employers said that they would allow their workers to continue to work-from-home for at least a quarter of the time. We should not rush into hasty legislation that unintentionally creates workplace rigidity that may impede our economic recovery at this time.

Our approach for workplace flexibility should be inclusive and not just about working from home. The 2019 Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony highlighted the diverse needs of various sectors and jobs, such as the needs of frontline workers differing significantly from that of office workers. For example, work-from-home is not practical for work that most frontline workers perform. It is therefore critical that a holistic approach be taken to enable more workers' access to appropriate workplace flexibilities, be it flexi-load, flexi-time or flexi-place.

To this end, the tripartite partners have been reaching out to employers and unions to promote the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements. We had also formed the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Work-Life Harmony last year, involving community stakeholders such as employers, employees and HR professionals. The AfA created three Communities of Practice for the food services, manufacturing and finance sectors respectively, to exchange best practices and develop implementation resources that were suited to companies’ sectoral needs. For example, Communities of Practice panellists shared how staggered hours could still be offered to onsite production staff who required them to flexibly manage their personal responsibilities, such as childcare. The HR profession through the Institute of Human Resource Professionals also came together to develop the Playbook on Hybrid Workplaces. We are continuing this ground-up effort by growing a community of Work-Life Ambassadors to champion and support these efforts at their workplaces.

Even as work-from-home arrangements stabilise, we are mindful of the risks from blurred work-life boundaries. The Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being was introduced in 2020 and one of the key recommendations was for employers to set reasonable expectations of after-hours work communications, such as not requiring employees to respond to non-urgent work-related messages and emails after certain hours. The AfA on Work-Life Harmony also developed an after-hours communications policy template to make it easier for companies to establish and communicate progressive after-hours communications practices.

The Government will continue to work with tripartite partners to expand the provision of flexible work arrangements in a sustainable manner.

Thank you, Sir and I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I have two clarifications?

One, I am not asking for 100% compulsory work-from-home, but to legislate the right to work from home and also to give employers the right to reject for work-related reasons. So, for example, if there is a face-to-face meeting that day, then the employee would not be allowed to work from home.

Two, I do agree with the Minister of State. We should not jump into legislating things, but the fact is that we have been debating this right to work from home for quite a number of years in the House now, even in the pre-COVID-19 days. COVID-19 has shown that work-from-home is possible, so I am just wondering what is stopping MOM from legislating this right to work from home.

I thank the hon Member Mr Louis Ng for that question, a very thoughtful one. The number of workers with access to flexible work arrangements has increased steadily over the years. From 2014 to 2019, the proportion of employers who offered at least one formal flexible work arrangement on a regular and sustained basis, rose from 47% to 53%. During the pandemic crisis, work-from-home as a form of flexible work arrangement has also become more common.

The Member asked why do we not legislate the right to request for work-from-home. While the economy is showing signs of recovery and more employers and employees are more comfortable and used to the arrangement of work-from-home, there remain uncertainties. As we look at other countries that have introduced legislation to allow employees to request to work from home, it is uncertain as in the outcomes are rather mixed on whether legislation makes a substantial improvement in the work-life and the flexibility that employees have. After all, like the hon Member said, employers will also have the right to reject the request for work-from-home.

I think we have to take a practical approach towards this. I fully agree with the hon Member Louis Ng that legislation may not be the best solution. In fact, what I think we should focus is on enabling employers and employees with resources and with guides to help them implement work-from-home and flexible work arrangements in a practical and sustained manner.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have a similar supplementary question. I note that the Ministry does not want to impose rigidity in workplace arrangements. Can I ask what are the plans for the Ministry to enhance or update existing legislation like the Employment Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Work Injury Compensation Act and so on, to cover work-from-home situations and essentially, to cover the home as a workplace?

The Employment Act covers basic terms of employment such as timely payment of salary and leave benefits. The protections offered under the Employment Act are not location specific. So, whether an individual is working from home or working in the office or working in the factory, the Employment Act covers them.

As for workplace safety and health, as some Members might remember, last year, the WSH Council issued a bulletin to inform employers about risk assessment for work-from-home. There is a checklist that helps employers as well as employees identify hazards when they are working from home.

On the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), we have also similarly clarified that regardless of whether an individual is working from home or working at the office or at the worksite, WICA applies. The key is about proving that the injury is incurred while a person is doing work and not performing non-work-related duties.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her replies. I have two supplementary questions. The first is the tripartite advisory has been launched for quite some time. How many companies have actually adopted some of the advice that we have put out on work-life harmony?

My second supplementary question relates to a commentary written by a Financial Times writer that was republished on CNA just this morning. It mentioned the disconnect between how bosses find workers to be less productive when telecommuting and workers themselves feeling that they are busier than ever. So, there is this disconnect. The writer argued that telecommuting makes workers busier simply because of the increased number of virtual meetings and having more internal coordination emails, work-related communications, but such additional work does not always translate to effective work outcomes.

I am of the view that we would need to come to a new social compact when it comes to such telecommuting work arrangements and reset expectations on what working hours are and what is productivity for those who work from home or those who adopt hybrid work arrangements.

So, can the Ministry study this issue in detail and provide recommendations on how workplaces can come to a consensus on such a new social compact and provide both employers and employees tools to manage the unique challenges posed by such telecommuting work arrangements? NTUC would be most happy to work with the Ministry on this.

I believe the hon Member Melvin Yong was referring to the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements and Tripartite Standard on Work-life Harmony.

The Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements was introduced in 2017 and today, the number of companies that have adopted this Standard covers one in four employees in our workplaces. Actually, the progress has been steadily increasing and we are quite glad for that. Certainly, there is room for us to encourage more companies to come on board. For bigger companies, probably, the confidence is a lot higher because they have the capacity and the expertise to implement flexible work arrangements and work-from-home arrangements more satisfactorily. For small companies or SMEs, for example, there might be more help required. And that is where the resources that have been put out by the tripartite partners, the Alliance for Action on Work-life Harmony, will come in useful. We will encourage companies to take a look at them.

The Tripartite Standard on Work-life Harmony was introduced barely a year ago. I think we should give it some time for companies to take a look and also get our employees and unions to work with the employers to adopt this Standard.

The point about making further studies on how we should define productivity and how we need to safeguard employees from the ability to disconnect from work when they are working from home and not suffering burn-out, I think we have debated this last year. It is important that we take practical approach towards this. More studies would help us and help inform employers on what are the practical approaches and tools and norms that they should consider.

But I think we should be mindful that a single guide or a single solution may not suit every sector and may not suit every job out there. Even among employees, there are diverse needs. There are people who may find that work-from-home suits them very well but we also know of individuals who prefer not to work from home, maybe because the home environment is not as conducive, perhaps they feel that their own productivity is not as high when they are working from home rather than in an office environment which is specially prepared for them to be able to work, interact and take part in team work and team meetings with their fellow workers.