Debated in Parliament on 15 Oct 2020.
Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider normalising work-from-home arrangements in the post-pandemic period and advocate among companies for more flexibility in work arrangements beyond the current crisis.
Work-from-home, or WFH, has become the norm during the COVID-19 period, with many employers implementing WFH arrangements, for the safety of their employees.
We are heartened by the speed at which companies and employees have adapted to the WFH arrangements during this period. Even as more are allowed to return to the workplace, some employers continue to allow their employees to WFH and return to the office only when needed. It is an encouraging sign that more people recognise the benefits of working from home and that it is becoming part of the “new normal”.
At the same time, we recognise that WFH may not be feasible under certain conditions. These include situations where workers have to be physically present at the workplace to operate machinery, or where there are challenges in working from home due to not so conducive home environments.
MOM will continue to advocate for the implementation of flexible work arrangements, or FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad hoc FWAs in the workplace. More than 7,000 companies have also adopted the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. MOM welcomes suggestions to implement FWAs and will continue to share good practices with employers.
Dr Wan Rizal.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. My question is, while working at home, many employees are subjected to really long hours. Will MOM come up with some law to protect employees? We have seen people who have back-to-back meetings on Zoom and the meetings run past their lunch and dinner times.
Our sessions run through lunch too.
I thank the hon Dr Wan Rizal for the comment. Indeed, while there are clear benefits of WFH and of continuing with it, it also has a set of new challenges that we are learning about. We are in the process of consultation with employers and employees to look at how we can moderate and also put in place recommendations to make WFH more sustainable in the steady state.
Could I ask the Minister of State, out of the 85% of the companies that are offering FWAs, how many percent are actually offering WFH arrangements? Second, can I also ask what was the Ministry's consideration when we so drastically reduced our WFH policy from 100% to 50%? Why do we not just have a set of conditions or criteria where, if an employee is required to go back to work, then, they go back to work; rather than halve it quite immediately?
For 2019, I do not have the data off-hand on what percentage of the 85% of the employers offered WFH arrangements as well. But we do know that prior to COVID-19, before the circuit breaker, there were fewer companies that were implementing WFH arrangements. During the circuit breaker, because of safety reasons, many companies, employers, have adapted very fast. We see that there is feedback from more employers telling us that they are prepared to continue to implement WFH post-COVID-19. So, this is an encouraging sign.
As to whether 50% is the correct level or not, I think we have to have proper conversations and discussions, hopefully with the tripartite partners to understand better the challenges that come along with WFH – both for the employers as well as for the employees, just as Dr Wan Rizal had mentioned earlier on. I think it is not so much pegging a certain level in the steady state, but rather, trying to find optimal conditions for us to be able to implement WFH in a sustainable manner.
Mr Sharael Taha.
I would like to thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I would also like to enquire, has MOM considered the downstream impact of WFH? With companies intending to downsize their office spaces to benefit from WFH, can we also take a look at how it impacts the downstream workers – those who are supporting office operations, such as the cleaners in the office, the food providers around the office space. Has MOM also considered those impacts?
I thank the hon Member for that comment. Indeed, implementing WFH affects not just the employers and the employees, but also the eco-system – the businesses and the individuals supporting WFH as well as work from office, work from workplace arrangements. So, these have to be studied carefully. As I have said earlier on, we are looking at having deeper discussions at the tripartite level to make sure that we understand the considerations fully and more holistically before we make further recommendations on implementing WFH further.
PAPERCUTS