I refer to the reports “More private firms allow local employees to work beyond 62” (ST, Jul 20) http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_824312.html and “Nearly all local employees retiring in 2011 offered jobs beyond 62: MOM” (Channel NewsAsia, Jul 20).http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1214643/1/.html
96.5% offered re-employment for 12 months or less?
According to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Retirement and Re-employment Practices, 2011 report,http://mom.gov.sg/statistics-publications/national-labour-market-information/publications/Pages/retirement-re-employment-practices.aspx “Nearly nine in ten (89%) private establishments offering re-employment indicated 12 months as the minimum duration of the re-employment contracts. 7.7% offered re-employment contracts of less than a year, while a small minority of 3.0% and 0.5% reported giving longer contracts of 24 and 36 months respectively”.
What this means is that only 3.5% of those offered re-employment were offered for longer than 12 months. Most may have to go through the uncertainty of being offered an extension after 12 months or less, as the case may be.
A re-employment act which in a sense, subjects most workers (96.5%) to just a one-year or less re-employment, may leave much to be desired from the perspective of job security from the workers’ point of view.
Employers can ‘not follow the tripartite guidelines’?
“In line with the tripartite guidelines, almost all (95%) private establishments offering re-employment reported that the re-employment contracts were renewable up till the age of 65, as long as the employee continued to meet the medical fitness and work performance requirements” – So, does this mean that 5% of those offering re-employment did not follow the tripartite guidelines?
From the perspective of workers, how desirable is a re-employment act that allows employers to ignore the tripartite guidelines?
‘Re-employed in either the same or different job’ vs ‘ re-employment strictly in the same job’?
“Employees could be re-employed in either the same or different job in majority (69%) of the establishments with re-employment policy. Another 31% allowed re-employment strictly in the same job” – What is the difference between ‘re-employed in either the same or different job’ and ‘ re-employment strictly in the same job’?
Does this simply mean that 69% were not re-employed in the same job? Isn’t this a rather high percentage? Why is it that so many workers who reach 62 were offered a different (‘either the same or different job’ according to MOM’s terminology) job?
94% paid the same wages: Really?
“nearly eight in ten (79%) local employees who accepted re-employment in the same job in the year ending June 2011 were paid the same wages. Taking into account local employees who continued working on their existing contracts, the proportion of employees who were paid the same wages upon re-employment in the same job or continuation on existing contracts was 94%
Of the local employees who accepted re-employment in the same job, only 17% of the employees were paid lower, with a median wage cut of 12%. A small minority or 3.6% were paid more, with a median wage gain of 12%”
I am somewhat confused by the above, as it seems to refer to only those ‘who accepted re-employment in the same job’ or ‘continuation on existing contracts’.
So, the burning question that workers may be wondering is – how many of the 69% who accepted re-employment (but not in the same job), had a pay cut?
Presumably, I think most of them may have had a pay cut, since the employer had offered a different job.
Unless the ‘re-employed in either the same or different job’ data was further dissected into ‘same’ and ‘different jobs’ to derive the above wage change conclusions in the report – to which there appears to be no explanation in the report?
How many workers worse off at 62?
Finally, if we include the one in 10 who did not accept the offer of re-employment and the 3.3% who were not offered re-employment, to the above, what percentage of workers who turned 62 ended up worse off?
Leong Sze Hian
