I refer to the report “Minister Tan: I do recognize the relationship tends to be weighted against workers” (TR Emeritus, Dec 6).
No salary arrears?
It states that “In this crane incident, I was initially concerned that the two workers (Mr Zhu Guilei and Mr Wu Xiaolin) were not properly paid. As it turned out, they did not have any salary arrears.”
Salary dispute settled on the spot?
In contrast, the article “Salaries not owed to workers who protested atop construction cranes: MOM” (Todayonline, Dec 7) said that “MOM’s checks have shown the two workers (Mr Zhu Gulei and Mr Wu Xiaolin) did not have any salary arrears.
As a result of the crane incident, the salary dispute between the employer and the two workers was resolved on the spot.”
So, if “they did not have any salary arrears”, how can “the salary dispute between the employer and the two workers was resolved on the spot”?
So, was or wasn’t there a salary dispute, salary arrears, or whatever you like to call it?
In this connection, the article “Workers facing employment issues should approach MOM for help: Tan Chuan-Jin” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 8) which was published a day after the above mentioned Today article, also said there were no salary arrears and did not mention anything about the salary dispute being settled on the spot.
Documents required to substantiate claims?
As to “Recently (actually, it was the day before they climbed the cranes), the two of them came to MOM on 5 Dec to highlight that they were owed salaries” and “MOM requires documentation from the workers in order to substantiate their claims so that MOM can handle the dispute fairly”, what exactly are the documents required to substantiate their claims?
No payslips?
In the “SMRT Bus Drivers Strike – Why should we care?” Forum on 8 December, one of the speakers Alex Au said that some employers do not give payslips to their foreign workers, and that they (TWC2) had suggested to the MOM to make it mandatory. However, the response was that the legislation would be amended to require payslips, but the worker can opt-out of it.
Worker can opt-out of payslips?
So how does this solve the problem as employers may simply ask their foreign workers to sign to opt-out?
“Troublesome”: Really unbelievable?
The Today article also said “After the workers were brought down from the crane, our officers asked one of them why they did not report their employment issues to MOM. One of the workers shared that going to MOM to lodge their claims was “troublesome”.”
So, it is less “troublesome” for the two workers to risk their lives atop the cranes for up to nine hours, get arrested, charged in court and jailed because they don’t have the money to post bail, etc?
If there were “no salary arrears”, what were they risking their lives for? – Nobody knows?
I think it seems that nobody seems to be asking the obvious questions.
Story stranger than fiction?
As I mused in part 1 of my article on 6 December, the real story may be turning out to be stranger than fiction.
No salary arrears, but investigating?
With regard to “MOM is investigating whether the company has breached any statutory provisions under the Employment Act”, if there was indeed ‘no salary arrears”, what is the MOM investigating?
Do they know or suspect something else that we don’t know?
Who knows? There may be a “Helping desperate workers: Stranger than fiction?” (Part 3)!
Leong Sze Hian
