Help for Employers, Employees and Those Looking for Jobs during COVID-19 Crisis

Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what measures are undertaken to ensure fair dismissal practices by employers of work permit holders who have been tested positive for COVID-19 and after the circuit breaker period; (b) what is the course of action for work permit holders who (i) have lost their jobs (ii) have salaries unpaid or (iii) wish to return to their countries of origin; (c) how have measures to safeguard employment and payment of salaries been communicated to (i) work permit holders and (ii) their employers; and (d) whether the Ministry will issue an advisory on (i) employment (ii) salaries (iii) fair dismissal practices and (iv) contract termination for all work permit holders and their employers.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what is being done to better protect, assist and support workers, especially professionals, managers and executives, who face contract termination, disguised retrenchments and other job severance and managing excess manpower arrangements which affect their livelihood during this COVID-19 period.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how common is the practice for employers and recruiters to ask job seekers to declare their last drawn salary or to share previous payslips; (b) whether any study has been made to ascertain how such practices affected employability and salary packages of job applicants; and (c) whether such a practice should be stopped so that applicants can move up the wage scale.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) arising from the COVID-19 situation, what is the employment status of Singaporeans who are currently based overseas; and (b) what are the assistance support available for them if they have lost their jobs and would like to return to Singapore to seek employment

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the latest labour market situation and the extent of contraction in local and foreign employment in the last three months; (b) what is the number of job losses expected in the next one year when the Jobs Support Scheme expires; and (c) what are the initiatives to support new job creations.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the introduction and implementation timeline of the new SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package will be impacted by the COVID-19 crisis and can be expedited; and (b) whether the at-risk mid-career workers can be given more transitional support during this steep economic slowdown.

Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are any plans to support employees who have been given notice by their employers to terminate their contracts but who have not received retrenchment benefits for terminations due to redundancies rather than poor performance.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about our labour market situation in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. For the first quarter of 2020, preliminary estimates showed a slight uptick of our unemployment rate and retrenchments compared to the previous quarter, even though they remained lower than peaks experienced during the SARS outbreak and Global Financial Crisis. Total employment, excluding foreign domestic workers, registered its sharpest quarterly contraction since SARS, due primarily to a significant decline in foreign employment.

To Mr Ang Hin Kee's question, there are about 200,000 Singaporeans living, working or studying abroad at any one time. Our employment surveys do not generally cover these overseas Singaporeans. However, given the global impact of the COVID-19 outbreak, we can imagine that some of them may face job losses. As our citizens, they will always be welcome home. We will also do our best to help all Singaporeans, including those who return, and whether they are fresh graduates or mid-career individuals, all the support systems and services will be extended to them.

The Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and other schemes under the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets are helping to cushion the impact on the labour market. As Singapore's GDP is expected to contract by between 4% and 7%, we should be prepared for further job displacements. Uncertainty about the future will also moderate hiring. We are therefore making a big push to open up pathways to jobs, including traineeships and skills upgrading programmes. I will speak more on these measures during the debate on the Fortitude Budget.

Given this backdrop, it is understandable that Mr Seah Kian Peng asks if the Government would consider a temporary reduction of CPF contributions. If the objective is to reduce the cost burden to employers, JSS has done so with fewer drawbacks. For example, those who depend on CPF contributions to meet housing and healthcare needs can continue to do so. Singaporeans' ability to save for retirement is also not eroded. As an added advantage, JSS is able to target stronger support at sectors that are more affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.

Another avenue of support was offered by the National Wages Council (NWC). Guidelines issued in March suggested that employers can consider reducing non-wage costs and making use of Government support measures such as the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit to train and upskill workers. The guidelines also advise employers to consider using the Monthly Variable Component (MVC) to adjust wages to save jobs. Such a tripartite approach to managing cost pressures is not easily available in many countries.

Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor and assess the situation, and consider whether other measures, including adjusting CPF contribution rates, may be necessary in future.

In these challenging times, there are also heightened sensitivities about fair treatment. For example, when it comes to recruitment, Mr Saktiandi Supaat is concerned if job seekers have been forced to declare their last drawn salaries during job application. In fact, there is no rule that job seekers must comply, and employers cannot insist on it. We should, however, take a practical approach on whether employers are allowed to ask for such information.

The last drawn salary is a relevant input to employers seeking to gauge a candidate's seniority or to make an appropriate job offer. However, if employers use last drawn salary to screen applicants, they risk losing out on good candidates who are prepared to adjust their salary expectations, especially in today's context. It is similarly unwise for employers to overlook the longer track record of the applicant, and make an offer based solely on the last drawn salary especially if the last-held position was an interim one. If a job seeker chooses to provide salary information, employers should use it carefully.

Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Joan Pereira asked about fair treatment of workers when they are retrenched, terminated, or have their wages reduced.

In this challenging period, we recognise that both workers and employers have to make sacrifices to save jobs wherever possible. Besides the NWC's guidelines on the fair approach to adjusting wages, the tripartite partners have issued advisories on managing excess manpower. We have been clear that retrenchment should be a last resort.

On the question of "disguised retrenchments", there are clear guidelines. Even during the COVID-19 period, whatever the termination of employment is called, an employee is presumed to have been retrenched if the employer cannot show a plan to fill the vacancy any time soon. Let me say that again, even during the COVID-19 outbreak, whatever the termination of employment is called, an employee is presumed to have been retrenched if the employer cannot show a plan to fill the vacancy any time soon.

If the retrenchment benefit is spelt out in the employment contract or collective agreement, the employer has a clear obligation to pay. He cannot side-step it by calling the retrenchment something else. If a company is found to have disguised their retrenchments, MOM can and will consider withdrawing Government support like JSS and suspending their work pass privileges.

However, in today's context, the bigger challenge is not that the employer pretends it is not a retrenchment, but that he does not have the means to fulfil his obligations. The tripartite partners have therefore agreed that in instances of genuine financial difficulty for the employer, retrenchment benefit may be re-negotiated or moderated. The norms may have to be set aside in these abnormal times. Nevertheless, businesses should still give some support to retrenched employees, to the extent that they can afford.

To ensure fair and responsible implementation of tripartite advisories, MOM has required employers to submit notifications of cost-saving measures they intend to undertake. Through these notifications, MOM and TAFEP identify companies for further engagement, for example, if their planned wage cuts appear excessive. Following our intervention, many companies reviewed their cost-saving measures to give more wage support to employees.

Our interventions also reveal that quite often, the worker suspects he has not been fairly treated because of poor communication with his employer. For example, an employee of a private pre-school operator was aggrieved to be asked to clear 13.5 days of her annual leave during the two-month long circuit breaker period. We found that she continued to get full pay even though her work hours were significantly reduced. The employer had also seen a sharp drop in revenue due to school fee refunds and the JSS payout was insufficient to cover employees' full wages during the period. The employer's request was therefore not unreasonable.

Nevertheless, after MOM's engagement, the employer arranged for this employee to work more days and only clear six days of annual leave. The company also took our advice to improve their communications by explaining their cost-saving measures clearly to all staff.

The cases we reviewed show that in the course of saving the business and preserving jobs, workers and employers need to build trust and maintain open communications. The tripartite partners firmly believe in the principle of shared responsibility, and urge both employers and employees to work together during this difficult time.

The general principles of fair treatment apply equally to all our workers, whether local or foreign. Likewise, when companies have to reduce wages in order to save jobs, both local and foreign employees should be considered. In the unfortunate event of retrenchment, it would certainly not be right to expect employers to favour their foreign employees compared to local workers.

The Government cannot also be expected to provide the same degree of fiscal support to employers to retain their foreign employees compared to their local employees, as Ms Anthea Ong seems to advocate. That is not a question of fairness, but reasonableness.

With respect to disputes involving dismissals, salary payment or repatriation home, there are established processes for handling them. It should not matter whether the worker contracted COVID-19 or not. Employers do not dismiss people because they got the flu or dengue, and they should not do so with COVID-19 either.

We have made clear to employers that even if business is disrupted, they must use the levy rebates that the Government has provided to give salary support to their migrant workers. It has also been a long-standing policy that employers have a duty to upkeep their workers until they have been repatriated home. These obligations remain unchanged in this downturn. It is not new to employers and MOM has not seen an increase in the number of such disputes. In any case, migrant workers with issues can raise them to MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management through the Migrant Worker Ambassadors and the Forward Assurance and Support Team officers that are currently deployed at the dormitories.

We are very mindful that this period can be stressful to all workers and, of course, to our migrant workers as well, particularly those who are living in dormitories. As detailed in my Ministerial Statement at the 4 May 2020 sitting of Parliament, we have made extensive efforts to disseminate information to them, in their native languages. Many Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have helped with volunteers manning hotlines and providing additional materials. We are very grateful for their partnership.

The National Jobs Council had our first meeting yesterday. Chaired by Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the Council includes veteran business leaders from industries and union leaders. It will focus on identifying and developing jobs, traineeships and skills training opportunities for Singaporeans amidst the COVID-19 situation.

Mr Speaker, we will open up many more pathways to jobs. As pointed out by Senior Minister Tharman, the scale of our attempt goes beyond any past experience. Complementing these efforts must be a renewed emphasis on fair opportunities for Singaporeans. This is no less important, in my view.

At the start of the year, MOM had identified Fairness at Work as our priority. We strengthened the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) and stiffened penalties for employers with discriminatory practices, whether for age or gender bias or for not giving qualified Singaporeans serious consideration for jobs.

The COVID-19 outbreak has only strengthened our resolve. In these challenging times, it is all the more critical to give our people the assurance of fair recruitment. Even as we work on opening up more pathways to jobs, we will continue to uphold the Fair Consideration Framework as a commitment to our people.

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive reply. Just one supplementary question. I think all businesses appreciate the Job Support Scheme and other reliefs that have been granted to them to help them reduce their cost and, to the extent possible, to save jobs. But the prospect of more job losses and, in fact, the prospect of wage cuts, is becoming more likely and prevalent. So, that is the genesis behind the question which I asked, whether there could be a temporary reduction of employee's and employer's CPF contributions.

While I appreciate and recognise that CPF indeed is a very important part of our overall financial planning, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible — I think on the employer side, fair enough, there is already enough support, but for most employees, the fact is that many of them are bringing back less. Every little bit that we could put on the table for them is something which will certainly help them, particularly in the current climate. It is an important part, I know the Minister had said that she will consider this, this is still on the table, but I think we need to do it a bit more proactively, given the looming and the likelihood of more wage cuts coming onstream. I hope the Minister will put this as a high priority item, something to be activated earlier rather than later.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Seah for his supplementary question. Let me say that I completely understand where he is coming from. I appreciate also the fact that he himself, in his capacity as a CEO, is responsible for many employees and he would naturally also want to see if there are ways that he can enable them to continue in employment. So, we are very mindful and at this juncture, we cannot preclude any further moves including the possibility of CPF contribution rate cuts in the future.

But I would say also that for CPF rate cuts, while the intention may be temporary in nature, the loss to a person's ability to accumulate savings for retirement is permanent. Once that savings opportunity is foregone, it cannot easily be reclaimed, and it usually takes a very long time to eventually restore whatever rates that have been cut. And, certainly, for the individual, there is very little likelihood that they can make up for what they were not able to grow in their CPF savings.

So, it is a decision that we have to take very carefully and certainly not lightly at all especially in consideration of the fact that our people will continue to live long lives. If we continue to manage our healthcare well, that must still be the upside to having progress in our society.

Therefore, we have to look at the longer term implications of any moves on the CPF front. It may well come to a stage where we have to do something about it. I take Mr Seah's point very well that if we can be proactive than to be reactive to the situation, that is indeed what we are trying to do.

If you think about not just the Unity, Resilient, Solidarity and Fortitude Budget provisions, which is to try and preserve jobs, we are at the same time not taking for granted that people who will become displaced will be able to move back into jobs easily, given the current situation. That is why there is going to be a big push for many more pathways to jobs, which I will say more about later.

Sir, one reason often cited by the employers why they need to hire foreign EPs or S Passes is the lack of specific skills, workers that they need. Now that we are in an excess labour market situation, can I ask the Minister if we should now focus our skills upgrading, our traineeships in sectors and in companies that traditionally hire more EPs and S Passes?

Mr Speaker, the short answer to Mr Liang's question is yes, indeed, we should. In one particular aspect of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package, we have identified Professional Conversion Programmes as an area of opportunity that could potentially benefit the employer as well as the job seeker. As Mr Liang correctly points out, there have been areas where, for many years, companies have become quite used to filling actually quite good job positions with Employment Pass holders as well as S Pass holders. In the built environment sector, for example, and I am looking at Minister Desmond Lee who is seated right in front of me, he and I have a joint interest, for example, in ensuring that good quality jobs that the built environment sector is creating, such as for building information modelling, these positions can actually be filled by Singaporeans – whether they are graduating from ITE, Polytechnics or even Universities. With appropriate training, they can actually take up these good jobs. What we need to do now is to work with the employers, work with the trade associations, to create the conversion programmes and then to reach out to suitable job applicants and put the match together. I think that is a very positive and the right way to go about trying to help job seekers and, at the same time, benefiting the employers.

I would like to thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to an entire list of questions. I am particularly heartened that she has answered my question on how we are going to better handle disguised retrenchments including situations where companies who are able to pay retrenchment benefits and execute disguised retrenchments will be taken to task if they do not do so. So, I am glad to hear the various executive measures by MOM as well as even withholding JSS will be enforced where needed against errant employers.

But I thought to further emphasise the point on contractual terminations, although the Employment Act does not prescribe the need for employers to give reasons for contractual terminations, whether with or without notice, whether MOM will want to push this agenda to advise and encourage employers to provide reasons for their termination. I think if the reasons are valid and if there is trust and proper communication with the employees, I am sure the employees themselves will understand the rationale and why they execute the contractual termination.

I understand where Mr Patrick Tay is coming from. MOM is mindful that during these times, we have already been issuing many advisories to employers on a whole range of matters. I would be quite careful and circumspect about issuing more. Frankly, employers themselves are under quite considerable pressure and we certainly do not want to enact more rules than is absolutely necessary.

The point really is this: between employers and employees, there should be good communication. In certain instances where both sides are under pressure, this may break down.

Our approach in handling these disputes is, firstly, to try and establish the facts and, secondly, to try and bring both parties to talk to each other. Quite often, that gets the job done; and quite often, it is due to a misunderstanding of each other's intentions, even more so during such times.

Where there is clear evidence of breach of guidelines or laws on the part of the employer, please be assured that we will take action. But, I am quite mindful not to too easily jump to the conclusion that employers are trying to avoid their obligations. In normal times, perhaps there will be a number of such employers. But in these very, very abnormal times, I think the evidence suggests that it is more due to the fact that the employers are also trying but they themselves face a lot of difficulties.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I am glad to hear her mention about the proactive measures that MOM has taken to address fair consideration given the current situation. What I am suggesting in my Parliamentary Question and also in this supplementary question, is about proactive measures beyond, for the post COVID environment. I will give the example of the US congress. It passed the Bill on Paycheck Fairness Act in 2019 to address the issue about indicating salary in job applications. The reason why I am raising this is because I am worried that, for example, fresh graduates in the post COVID environment are wary of taking up first jobs that pay below the median salary for fear that their salaries will always be pegged to it, particularly, those offered by SMEs.

So, it is the post COVID environment that I am concerned about, whether we could be proactive in taking these steps ahead of this situation arising.

The fresh graduates would rather wait it out if they can rely on their parents, leading to months of post-graduation unemployment. My concern is whether some of the salary or payslip practices by employers will actually lead to further negative externalities in the future, thus exacerbating unemployment numbers.

Sir, Speaker, I thank Mr Saktiandi for his questions. As it turned out, my previous job was as a HR director and in that role, I reviewed hundreds, perhaps thousands of job applications, which of course include information of all kinds: name, gender, last drawn pay, where you used to work, what you did in school, Co-curricular Activities (CCAs), what awards you had won, what membership you have.

I think if I can share from a HR practitioner's perspective, the last drawn pay is really one of many things that is considered when we make a job offer. If a HR practitioner or a firm is so short-sighted as to look rigidly at the last drawn pay as an indication of the candidate's worth to the organisation, then my advice to the applicant is look for another employer, this is not a company that you should spend too much time on. And that would also be my suggestion.

WSG, and actually our partners as well, will be more than happy to work with the job seeker to explore other options. Do not spend too much time and waste your energy with these kinds of employers who cannot see beyond one number.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I ask the supplementary questions, can I put on record, given what the Minister had said, there was actually no intention and no implication on my part to say that employers treat local workers better than foreign workers. Especially for myself, I am an employer of local employees. So, I do not think it was fair to infer that was my implication from the question that I asked.

I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. She mentioned TADM and we are aware of it; and given that in-person services for TADM and also that the Employment Claims Tribunal are currently suspended due to safe distancing measures, could I ask the Minister how has the Ministry communicated the online process of filing salary and wrongful dismissal claims to work permit holders. And again, if this communication for the online process is also translated into their native languages.

The second question is, there was a advisory dated 25 April 2020 regarding salary and leave arrangements during circuit breaker, where employers of work permit holders are responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. As we exit the circuit breaker, for work permit holders who cannot work due to COVID-19 or the fact that their dormitories are being gazetted as isolation areas, could the Minister please clarify if employers of work permit holders must continue to pay for: one, their salaries; two, their living arrangements; three, their food expenses and also last but not least, miscellaneous expenses.

Mr Speaker, on Ms Ong's second question, the position has been very clear, from the beginning. Wherever it is that the workers are living and including in the dormitories, the employers have primary responsibility. But as Ms Ong will also be aware, in the gazetted dormitories and subsequently in all the purpose-built dormitories, the Government put together staff teams to support the operations at the dormitories. And that had included a provision of food as well. So, that part of it I think, has been clear. Even during this period of the circuit breaker, the employers have responsibility for salary and for upkeep.

Ms Ong mentioned miscellaneous expenses, I am not entirely sure what other miscellaneous expenses they include, but if it has to do with the upkeep of the workers, then the answer is yes. Outside of that, there is no blanket to say that the employers must cover all of the workers' cost. It depends on what those cost items are.

Back to her first question, on whether the online processes are available in native languages, the online application itself may not be, but then it is also not available in Chinese, in Malay or in Tamil. But what is important is that access to those channels is not impeded by language barriers. For that, we work together with our partners – the Migrant Workers' Centre, for example, has got not just staff but also a very large pool of volunteers and these volunteers can include the migrant workers themselves. In fact, most often, they are the migrant workers themselves. When a worker comes to work in Singapore for the first time, they go through a settling-in programme and the migrant workers' ambassadors are also familiar, or at least we continuously reach out through them, to remind workers of which are the avenues that they have to raise their concerns.

Many Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) also establish links with these workers. Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad, engages these NGOs on a very regular basis. We have worked out a system where regardless of where these workers are housed, they are able to provide feedback and raise their concerns with us so that we can address them properly.

If language turns out to be a barrier, we have no shortage of people who are able to come in to intermediate. The process may take a little bit longer, but it can be done.

And finally, I appreciate Ms Ong's clarification on her intent.

Thank you, Sir. I have a question for with regard to the declaration of last drawn salary. I understand that California has banned this, I think in January 2018. In a study that was published in April 2020, it showed that this ban led to a reduction in the gender wage gap in in that state. So, could I ask whether MOM has studied the extent to which this declaration of last drawn salary contributes to the gender wage gap here in Singapore?

Not specifically, Mr Speaker. That is my answer to Mr Ng. Although, I think there are many other contributing factors that are more prominent. We have many priorities. We have a lot of things on our plate. Useful studies, we will take a look at them. But it will not be realistic to chase down every study. We have to just be circumspect about which are the avenues that are worth pursuing.