Standard Contract Doesn't Fix Lack of Day Off
A regular day off for domestic workers
The Standard Contract Is Not Working: It Is Time For It To Be Made Law
On September 15th 2006, a new standard employment contract for domestic workers was due to be implemented across the whole of the employment agency industry in Singapore. Its terms had been agreed by the two accreditation bodies for agencies, the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) and CASETrust.
A key feature of the contract was the clause concerning time off for the worker. It gave signatories the options of agreeing that the worker should have one, two, three or four days off per month. In theory, this meant that the worker could be sure of receiving at least one day a month when she could relax and go out to spend her time as she chose.
Unfortunately, this provision was undermined by another that allowed an employer to pay a worker extra money on top of her regular wage to give up her time off.
A year has now passed since the standard employment contract came into effect, and it is time to assess how effective it has been in ensuring that domestic workers receive at least one day off each month. Since contracts come up for renewal every two years, new workers have continued to come to Singapore throughout the past 12 months, and about 50 per cent of domestic workers already had days off, that ought to mean that roughly 75 per cent of domestic workers should have regular days off by now.
This has evidently not happened. Far from it: TWC2 does not see evidence of any significant change in the proportion of domestic workers having a regular day off. Our domestic worker contacts report that workers with whom they have been in contact in households that denied them time off are still refused a day off; in the first seven months of our helpline’s operation (19th December 2006-31st July 2007), 16 per cent of calls concerned no day off or overwork (long hours of work with inadequate time to rest).
The standard contract is not used by all agencies. The general practice, where it is in use, seems to be to accept unquestioningly the wishes of employers who don't want to give a day off to their domestic workers, and point out how they can do that. Indeed, TWC2 has heard from some would-be employers of domestic workers who told us that the agencies they approached informed them that they could arrange 'no day off' workers without them even asking.
Everyone needs time off, whatever his or her job. TWC2 believes that domestic workers should have a weekly day off by right. It should be protected from any inducement to make them sign it away. This measure ought to be introduced by the government as a law or regulation. It is unfair to expect agencies, which have to operate in competition with each other and offer appealing terms to customers who want to employ domestic workers, to promote a regular day off for domestic workers - and we say that knowing that there are individual agents who do try their best to encourage employers to give a day off to their domestic workers.
Our view is that the case for a regular day off for domestic workers has been established: there are no arguments based on justice and fairness that can stand up against it. In TWC2's view, all interested parties should now embrace the principle of a regular day off and concentrate their attentions on the practicalities of introducing it so that all who labour for a living in the territory of Singapore may enjoy this basic entitlement.
Transient Workers Count Too
15th September 2007