Support for Employers and Employees Affected by Requirement for Companies to Fairly Consider Flexi-work Requests

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the recent guidelines mandating the need for employers to consider requests for flexible work arrangements will make Singapore a less attractive place for companies to do business.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the new Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests coming into effect, whether the Ministry has considered mandating a shorter timeframe for employers to communicate their decision on a request for flexible work arrangements instead of the two months' timeframe.

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what likely impact will the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests have on senior PMETs aged 45 and above; (b) which sectors may be more impacted by the implementation of the guidelines; and (c) what is the positive impact on the Singapore economy in adopting the guidelines.

Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower in view that all employers in Singapore must fairly consider requests for flexible work arrangements from 1 December 2024 under the new Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (a) whether the Ministry can clarify what constitutes a "fair consideration"; and (b) how are employers held accountable for their decisions to accept or reject such requests.

Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how has the Ministry ensured that employers are prepared to implement the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, particularly regarding timelines and considerations for rejecting requests; (b) whether the Ministry can elaborate on the support and resources available, including any training initiatives, to assist businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, in adapting to these new guidelines; and (c) how can we mitigate against employers turning towards outsourcing of work to overseas workers.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower with the introduction of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement (FWAs) Requests from December 2024 (a) whether there is any target or expected percentage of (i) firms that offer and (ii) employees that are covered by, formal FWAs; and (b) whether there are any legal ramifications for firms that do not adequately implement the guidelines.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower following the acceptance of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests by the Government (a) what supportive measures will the Ministry be introducing to assist more companies during their transition in adopting these guidelines; and (b) whether there will be more resources made available to strengthen trust and harmonious workplace culture, including more avenues for mediation and dispute resolutions.

I thank Members for their questions on flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and the recently launched tripartite guidelines on FWA requests. In the past few years, many Members in this House and the Labour Movement have called the Government to do more to encourage FWAs.

We have a rapidly ageing population. One in four Singaporeans will be above 65 years old by 2030. More of us will have to juggle caregiving responsibilities while working. There will also be more seniors who want to continue working, but in a more flexible manner. FWAs are, therefore, another important initiative to help us optimise our local workforce potential in the long term.

Employers who implement FWAs well will also benefit, as they will be able to hire from a larger local manpower pool. Hence, we formed a Tripartite Workgroup last year to develop a set of tripartite guidelines on FWA requests. The guidelines will take effect on 1 December this year. The Workgroup consulted extensively with employees, the unions, employers and human resource (HR) professionals.

The consensus was that we should not mandate FWAs or set hard targets. There are a myriad and spectrum of businesses, service types and sector-specific needs which vary widely and serve different segments of the economy, including essential services. For FWAs to be successful, it must make businesses sustainable for the employers.

It does not make sense to require businesses to offer FWAs even when it negatively impacts business and affects employment prospects for Singaporeans. Employers should, therefore, continue to have the prerogative to determine work arrangements that work for the team, the business and the clients.

What the guideline does is to require employers to properly consider employees' formal FWA requests. The aim is to establish the right norms, and enable employees and employers to have constructive discussions, so that both sides can work out FWAs that are mutually beneficial.

Employers must therefore consider FWAs based on business grounds, such as job requirements and impact to business productivity. Tripartite partners agree that this is a reasonable and practical approach which balances the needs of both employees and employers.

In the same spirit, the Workgroup felt that employers should be given sufficient time to discuss with employees their FWA requests and also consider how they can adjust workplace practices to accommodate FWAs. Otherwise, employers may decide to reject the request outright. The Workgroup landed on two months which is similar to other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom.

Employees who feel that the employers have not considered the FWA request based on proper process should first discuss and try to resolve disagreements internally through their company's grievance handling process. Unionised employees can also seek advice from their respective unions. Thereafter, if the dispute is still not resolved, they may seek help from the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP).

TAFEP would take up an educational approach and engage the employers to help them comply with the guidelines. Employers who are recalcitrant may be issued a warning by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and be asked to attend mandatory HR training.

Several Members have asked about the impact of the guidelines on employers in different sectors and how we can help employers comply. I must emphasise that FWAs do not equate to work-from-home only. There is a variety of FWAs that employers can adopt depending on the industry context and the specific job role, while still maintaining productivity and ensuring that business needs are met.

For instance, those in sectors and jobs where the work must be done on-site may not be able to work from home, but employers can still explore options, such as flexi-time and flexi-load. To be clear, the formal process for requesting FWAs, as recommended in the guidelines, will be useful mainly for organisations that do not have any process yet for their employees to request for FWAs.

Where there is an existing process, whether formal or informal, and it is working well for both employers and employees, the employer should use the process stipulated by the company to request for FWAs. What is most important is for the employees and employers to be able to discuss and land on arrangements that address their respective needs and constraints and maintain harmonious working relationships.

To help employers, TAFEP and the Institute for HR Professionals (IHRP) will be rolling out a range of resources this year. Besides self-help resources, such as case studies, templates and e-learning modules, which are already available on TAFEP's website, TAFEP will be conducting monthly briefings for employers starting from May. The first few runs have already been fully subscribed.

TAFEP will provide more guidance to help employers understand the types of FWAs they can offer to employees with different needs, such as senior employees who may prefer flexi-load or mobility-challenged workers who may need telecommuting arrangements. The resources and briefings will guide employers on how to comply with the guidelines. But, more importantly, how to implement FWAs well, such that it supports business needs.

Employers can also tap on grants, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to offset the cost of adopting FWAs, such as consultancy services, to redesign jobs or business processes and upgrade the IT system to support FWAs. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) may require more targeted support.

TAFEP and IHRP will work closely with the Association for Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and the SME Centres, to organise briefings and training workshops to help SMEs in FWA implementation.

Members have also asked about the potential impact of the guidelines on Singaporeans' employment prospects, be it through increased outsourcing to remote workers elsewhere or greater reliance on foreign manpower. With or without these guidelines, remote work and outsourcing are already global trends, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Whether the trend will continue depends on whether employers feel that it makes business sense and employers will need to weigh the pros and cons. Similarly, even if the foreigners are not working in Singapore, they will still be competing with us when working in companies overseas. What is more important is for our workers to continually upskill, sharpen our competitive edge and stay productive. We will, then, be able to compete effectively for jobs, not just in Singapore, but globally.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, I would like to emphasise a few key points. FWAs are an increasingly important tool for employers to attract and retain talent. The guidelines specify the need for a process for requesting and considering FWA requests, but do not mandate that every FWA request must be approved. The guidelines allow employers to decide on the FWA request, depending on what works for the team, the business and the clients. The guidelines aim to shape the right norms and expectations around FWAs.

Employees ought to use FWAs responsibly, even as their employers develop HR capabilities and processes to implement FWAs well and productively. Finally, we will continue to provide resources and tools to support this and hope that employers and employees will both do their part to achieve win-win outcomes and ultimately more inclusive workplaces in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, in considering FWA requests, I think HR professionals play a pivotal role in aligning management's perspective and, importantly, achieve a harmonious outcome. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State, how will the Ministry facilitate and ensure HR professionals are equipped with the right framework and tools in implementing FWAs effectively in the workplace?

HR professionals, indeed, are a key node in the successful implementation of FWAs and, hence, the Tripartite Work Group involved IHRP in the consultation and also drafting of the guidelines. In our various consultations leading up to the development of the guidelines, HR professionals were involved in various sessions to give us inputs on what sort of help and resources they might need.

Yesterday, I attended an engagement session with HR professionals facilitated by IHRP to share the tools, the courses and the resources available for HR professionals to tap on. We welcome HR professionals to continue to give feedback to the Tripartite Workgroup and to IHRP as well as TAFEP on what are the other resources and help that HR professionals might need for them to do their job well.

Sir, it is important for workers to have the right to ask for flexibility in their work arrangements. However, would MOM agree that this should be left to employers and employees to negotiate and settle? If the worker is valued by the company, surely, the company would accede to that request. Why is there this need to have guidelines to make it mandatory for companies to consider such requests from employees?

The feedback I have is that many companies have told me that this is making it more onerous for a large company with many staff and for their HR team to have to deal with so many requests, especially for the staff that they feel that are on the borderline, that they may not want to keep. So, are we pushing the companies to say, "Let us get rid of the less performing staff?"

At the end of the day, my concern is whether this will make Singapore a less attractive place for companies to come to invest in, if they feel that the manpower policies are too onerous on the companies.

Prior to the guidelines, there had already been a lot of feedback from both employers and employees about expectations and requests on FWAs. First of all, let me clarify that FWAs do not mean work from home only. FWAs also do not mean work less. FWAs also do not mean reduced productivity. And the final one: the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements, which take effect from 1 December, would not mean that come December, every workplace must have FWAs.

So, let us be clear upfront. These guidelines are meant to help employers manage also the expectations of their employees. We know that, coming out of COVID-19, there are some employees continually asking their employers and their supervisors, why can they not continue to work from home? And some of the employers find it quite troubling and difficult to manage expectations of the employees. At the same time, we also hear anecdotal feedback from some employees that their employers are not receptive at all and not even responding to their request for FWAs.

To make sure workplaces continue to be productive and have harmonious workplace relationships, these guidelines actually are for both parties – as what hon Member, Ms Lim Biow Chuan suggested – to have a way, a process to negotiate and also to discuss what works for the individual, what works for the team, the business and the clients.

There is no intention whatsoever for these guidelines to intervene on how companies should decide on the FWA requests coming from the employees, as long as the employers apply a proper process in evaluating and responding to the FWA requests.

Just for your information, there are also many calls from the Members of the House, some of you might remember, for legislation, for the right to request and which we have seen in quite a few other countries. Instead of going the way of legislation, the tripartite partners, after a lot of consultation with various groups, felt that legislation would not be helpful. Instead, guidelines to guide the conversation and implementation of FWA requests would be more practical and a balanced approach. We hope that employers and employees will make win-win outcomes out of these guidelines.

Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is that I understand that based on the guidelines, cost, productivity and feasibility concerns are possible grounds for rejection of FWA requests. But I am also concerned that this could give employers a lot of leeway to actually not consider the FWA requests, where these are actually possible.

So, on the part of the employees, should there be concerns that their FWA requests are not adequately considered, beyond mediation and follow-up discussions with management, what are some of their recourse? The second part is I also understand that the Civil Service will be taking up these guidelines, so, just to understand what sort of percentage of civil servants will be able to access some form of formal FWAs after this is adopted?

Employees who feel that their employers have not considered their requests properly, not based on business grounds but perhaps personal bias, can approach the union members or the union leaders if they are unionised companies. If not, they can go to TAFEP. TAFEP will be very happy to walk through with the employers on their responsibilities under the guidelines.

The Civil Service embraces FWAs. Just like the private sector, we have a very big Civil Service and there are different job roles, different working environments. We similarly need to give flexibility for the supervisors, managers to discuss with the staff on what sort of FWAs would work, not just for that one person asking for the FWA, but also how it affects the rest of the co-workers, and the services and the output that need to be delivered as well.

Sir, could I ask the Minister of State what are the penalties for employers that continuously refuse to comply with the tripartite guidelines? For example, again, refusing that their request for FWAs on unreasonable grounds. Second, if the penalties are similar to the other tripartite guidelines, which is the curtailment of work pass privileges, for companies who do not employ foreigners, what then are the penalties for them?

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for sharing on FWAs. Like many, I welcome FWAs, especially from the mental health perspective. But I do have concerns from employees who want to step forward. I think they are fearing this idea of being discriminated against. They fear that their personal issues may be resurfaced now and then, it will be used against them in terms of career progression and so on and so forth. What considerations would the Ministry take to provide clear assurances to such employees?

Firstly, the guidelines do not really differentiate whether a person has mental health or well-being conditions. I would like to make that clear. Actually, FWAs can benefit anyone, everyone.

For workers who have certain health conditions, whether it is mental or other sorts of health issues, employers have to assess, evaluate their performance and pay them fairly based on the work that is done by them and not discriminate them based on conditions such as health that do not affect their performance.

Speaker. I have got two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first one is, as the Minister of State has pointed out, the labour market is tight and corporates are also finding ways to adjust with how to cope with the labour supply. Does Minister of State think that we will likely see an increase of offshoring of jobs as a result of this implementation of the guidelines?

The second supplementary question is with regard to the union. Today, we are seeing an increasing trend of having more professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) as your union members as well. Would the Minister of State think that, especially in my Parliamentary Question, the Minister of State has not answered the part, with PMETs in the middle age group, between 45 and 60s, would the Minister of State think that this implementation of guidelines and the redesign of job scope would disadvantage them and make Singapore uncompetitive as a market to retain these PMETs?

I just want to reiterate that the guidelines which promote FWAs and tell employers they need to have a proper process to consider the request, do not mean that the only form of FWA is work from home and it also does not mean work less nor does it mean reduced productivity.

For Singaporeans to stay competitive and be desirable in terms of jobs and employability, we need to have the relevant skills, we need to be productive, we need to have the competitive edge. Offshoring, outsourcing, post-COVID, companies that found that remote work worked well for the business, they would have continued to do so, even without these guidelines. In fact, businesses are driven by their own bottom lines, what works well in terms of them being able to access talent and also cost. We should not pretend that without FWAs, there will be less offshoring.

I would also point out that elsewhere, in the United States, for example, we are also seeing some tech companies putting out statements that remote work does not work for them. There seems to be some suggestion that for certain sectors and for certain types of work, physical, on-site presence, teamwork, all these are still very key. Some of the companies that we have engaged in Singapore have shared similar feedback. And for those, offshoring may not be a natural choice and certainly, would not be affected by these guidelines.

As for middle-aged workers, PMETs, our focus must be on preparing them well for jobs for life, upskilling them, making sure there are enough job opportunities in various sectors so that whether you are PMET or non-PMET, you will continue to enjoy good career prospects. Career health is another strategy that we are working on to help middle-aged workers stay employable. There are many schemes at the Government level to support the middle-aged workers. I hope Members will support us in these initiatives.

Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State how will FWAs interface with the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)? For flexi-load, for example, where a worker in one of these sectors requests to work less days, that may bring his gross wage to below the PWM prescribed wage floor. Would the employer then be required to immediately reject this, so that he remains compliant with the PWM?

I would say that employers have to pay competitively in order to be able to attract good people to join them and to retain them. For workers who are on FWAs, if their work output and productivity are not affected, actually, there is no basis for employers to reduce their pay.

Speaker, I thank the Member of Parliament for his supplementary question. I also wanted to set the context. The PWM was a carefully crafted, sectoral based wage which helps uplift the wages of our low-wage workers. In the implementation, in terms of any form of guidelines, particularly the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, the spirit of the PWM should really lead the entire thinking behind this.

FWAs do not equate just as flexi-time. It could be flexi-load. Flexi-time is one other aspect, and there is flexi-place. Hence, in terms of the Tripartite Guidelines, it embodies a spirit of collaboration. It has taken into account the underlying basis of tripartism and how we work with all of our tripartite partners to come to a very nuanced approach.

We are moving into newer waters. I would seek and appeal to the understanding, the support and also the patience of all of us together as one united society, to come together to make this work for the betterment of all of our future generations of workers.