[Ngck]

The article probably meant that the strike could have been prevented if prior actions had been taken when the issues were highlighted.

It is normal human reactions when pushed against a wall to go to the extreme...

The article did highlight that strike is not acceptable...

but what brougt the strike to happen was something building up for the last few months...

 

Clearly once again, this shows the complete lack of communication from the top down...

 

One thing for sure, am sure the Locals and MY drivers are equally unhappy in the "increment" in pay and "increment" in working hours...

but moving forward... they are glad this happened as it will force SMRT to rethink before enforcing any changes...

 

 

they already 杀一儆百 for now...... already warm everyone including locals not to try anything funny even if you run out of options and keep getting ignored...

 

luckily for local, we can just quite and find another job..... not so easy for these foreign drivers

 

 

[Ngck]

If this one industrial action goes unpunished and leads to strikes all over Singapore, as some fearmongers are predicting in a doomsday type of scenario, doesn't that say a lot about the labour relations and how workers are treated in Singapore?

 

Does that mean that we treat our workers badly and only the law is keeping everyone in check?

 

I like how Vincent has references to most of his statements about the various parties identified in his little essay. If anyone wants to question his statements or threaten defamation suits i'm sure he'll have a big stack of evidence to back up his claims.

 

I honestly have not seen any current members of the ruling party express themselves this intelligently, although perhaps Shanmugam can come close.

 

his post will be ignored.. just like the drivers requests

[Pocus]

Pretty good article, although a bit swaying from the original intention towards authority blaming and swaying back. While I fully agree on his take on SG's perspective of FW/FTs, the middle of the article was clearing to highlight the perceived failure of the gahmen?

 

Based on the author's point of view you can sense the strong Social liberalism undertones to it..

 

Only after I visited the FB page I realise he's from SDP...no wonder..lol

 

 

[Evillusion]

his post will be ignored.. just like the drivers requests

it wont be ignored i tell u.....his cheng hu buddies will come in and will challenge those that is making noise to step up n be counted but not to lead but to takeover the job of the driver!

[Ngck]

it wont be ignored i tell u.....his cheng hu buddies will come in and will challenge those that is making noise to step up n be counted but not to lead but to takeover the job of the driver!

 

 

lol... maybe they will say giving in to the drivers request is akin to raiding the reserves since its a GLC..

 

 

[Calvin79]

Agree bro...

 

sometimes probably they need "bonding" time also...

wahahahha

[Oblong]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

 

Good to know

[Zenithpool]

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

 

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

 

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

Well said.

[Myxilplix]

Pretty good article, although a bit swaying from the original intention towards authority blaming and swaying back. While I fully agree on his take on SG's perspective of FW/FTs, the middle of the article was clearing to highlight the perceived failure of the gahmen?

 

Based on the author's point of view you can sense the strong Social liberalism undertones to it..

 

Only after I visited the FB page I realise he's from SDP...no wonder..lol

 

It is difficult to disassociate the gahment as they've pretty much got their hand in everything (particularly with GLCs like SMRT) and i think it would be a disservice if the writer were to ignore their role. It's the big elephant in the corner of the room.

[Myxilplix]

Some academics weighing in on the issue.

 

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/smrt-bus-drivers%...-035746969.html

 

What now as Singapore reels from the shock of dealing with its first industrial strike in some 26 years?

 

From the perspective of labour economics assistant professor Walter Edgar Theseira, who teaches at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), the strike and its aftermath have demonstrated

[Jasonjst]

Thanks TS for bringing the other side of this news. I am now more informed.

 

Unfortunately , majority of Singaporean will not make a effort to understand what is all about.

The day will come when they tell you "If you are not happy you can migrate eleswhere "

Edited December 3, 2012 by Jasonjst

[Manmaster]

The writer's posting is a lengthy essay but is definitely not an impressive one. It's just trying to bring the readers on a wild goose chase and in fact can be a bit misleading. By supporting a strike is definitely a NO NO to me. First of all, the china bus drivers agreed on the terms & conditions on the employment contracts before coming to SG to work but got disgruntled after knowing what other foreign drivers were making without understanding the costs involved in training & bringing them to SG to work. To be fair to our malaysian counterparts, we must accord them with the same benefits too if the china drivers deserve the same pay.

 

Secondly, the malaysian bus drivers provided a much better service than china bus drivers as malaysians were able to speak 3 languages which were much suited for our society. Despite doing the same job, service quality differs greatly between the 2 groups. Just because u're doing the same job doesn't mean u must get the same pay. I can do a point to point rebuttals but this is pointless to me. The only thing I want to posit is that no strike must be allowed for any reason.

[Darryn]

The writer's posting is a lengthy essay but is definitely not an impressive one. It's just trying to bring the readers on a wild goose chase and in fact can be a bit misleading. By supporting a strike is definitely a NO NO to me. First of all, the china bus drivers agreed on the terms & conditions on the employment contracts before coming to SG to work but got disgruntled after knowing what other foreign drivers were making without understanding the costs involved in training & bringing them to SG to work. To be fair to our malaysian counterparts, we must accord them with the same benefits too if the china drivers deserve the same pay.

 

If you'd actually taken the time to read and understand the article, you'd know that you were wrong here.

 

The key to the grievance is a change from a 5 day working week to a 6 day working week. Despite 6 months of negotiations, and unhappiness from all three groups of workers, SMRT were taking a high handed approach to this.

 

With the change also, the conditions are different to what was negotiated at the start of the contract. So basically, the argument you are making does not hold water - SMRT varied their end of it, and (assuming the reports that have come out are accurate) refusing to consider how the drivers felt.

 

On this same issue there have been a lot of complaints from Singaporean drivers on how unfair it is, how the union hasn't been helpful and on how "high handed" SMRT have been.

 

Secondly, the malaysian bus drivers provided a much better service than china bus drivers as malaysians were able to speak 3 languages which were much suited for our society. Despite doing the same job, service quality differs greatly between the 2 groups. Just because u're doing the same job doesn't mean u must get the same pay. I can do a point to point rebuttals but this is pointless to me. The only thing I want to posit is that no strike must be allowed for any reason.

This is racist.

 

If the difference in pay is based on service - then base it on service NOT nationality. Pass an english test, get a pay raise, pass a malay test, get another. When you distribute a raise based on nationality, you are explicitly rejecting service. Out of laziness? Maybe.

 

But if you really want to make the argument on service levels, then there should be metrics to use to base the raise on service.

[Damienic]

If you'd actually taken the time to read and understand the article, you'd know that you were wrong here.

 

The key to the grievance is a change from a 5 day working week to a 6 day working week. Despite 6 months of negotiations, and unhappiness from all three groups of workers, SMRT were taking a high handed approach to this.

 

With the change also, the conditions are different to what was negotiated at the start of the contract. So basically, the argument you are making does not hold water - SMRT varied their end of it, and (assuming the reports that have come out are accurate) refusing to consider how the drivers felt.

 

On this same issue there have been a lot of complaints from Singaporean drivers on how unfair it is, how the union hasn't been helpful and on how "high handed" SMRT have been.

 

 

This is racist.

 

If the difference in pay is based on service - then base it on service NOT nationality. Pass an english test, get a pay raise, pass a malay test, get another. When you distribute a raise based on nationality, you are explicitly rejecting service. Out of laziness? Maybe.

 

But if you really want to make the argument on service levels, then there should be metrics to use to base the raise on service.

 

I doubt Manmaster even read the article in detail. The first thing that comes to his mind is that a strike is a No-No and so with that, he condemned the whole article and dismisses what is written in it to be without merit.

[Darryn]

I doubt Manmaster even read the article in detail. The first thing that comes to his mind is that a strike is a No-No and so with that, he condemned the whole article and dismisses what is written in it to be without merit.

 

This is the problem, too many people like at it like black and white.

 

Strike = Wrong. End of story.

 

Too many are not considering the worker side of it - what exactly were they supposed to do after SMRT unilaterally changed their working conditions? After various NGO had approached SMRT on their behalf?

 

And at what point do strikes become acceptable - how bad do conditions need to be before you are allowed to strike.

 

Further, look towards China, these guys had a peaceful strike without trying to blockade or picket the busses. They could have been a whole lot rowdier - just look at some of the strikes out of China, or take a look around the world to see how some strikes go.

 

 

[Manmaster]

If you'd actually taken the time to read and understand the article, you'd know that you were wrong here.

 

The key to the grievance is a change from a 5 day working week to a 6 day working week. Despite 6 months of negotiations, and unhappiness from all three groups of workers, SMRT were taking a high handed approach to this.

 

With the change also, the conditions are different to what was negotiated at the start of the contract. So basically, the argument you are making does not hold water - SMRT varied their end of it, and (assuming the reports that have come out are accurate) refusing to consider how the drivers felt.

 

On this same issue there have been a lot of complaints from Singaporean drivers on how unfair it is, how the union hasn't been helpful and on how "high handed" SMRT have been.

 

 

This is racist.

 

If the difference in pay is based on service - then base it on service NOT nationality. Pass an english test, get a pay raise, pass a malay test, get another. When you distribute a raise based on nationality, you are explicitly rejecting service. Out of laziness? Maybe.

 

But if you really want to make the argument on service levels, then there should be metrics to use to base the raise on service.

 

Contractual workers are different from perm staffs and the china drivers are contractual workers on a 2 years term. It is unclear what SMRT had put in the prior contract and how can you be sure that SMRT contravened any term & condition in the contract? Maybe SMRT had already stated in the prior contract that it had the right to revise the terms & conditions for contractual workers.

 

The differences in pay could be due to different skills, training & other benefits, etc. I didn't say it was based on nationality. The article didn't point out that the china drivers were provided with accommodation and also chartered buses to bring them to work but not the malaysians. The malaysians have to either commute daily to work or find a place on their own. If u think the china drivers deserve the same pay, why don't u argue that the malaysian drivers deserve the same benefits too?

 

 

[Joseph22]

Contractual workers are different from perm staffs and the china drivers are contractual workers on a 2 years term. It is unclear what SMRT had put in the prior contract and how can you be sure that SMRT contravened any term & condition in the contract? Maybe SMRT had already stated in the prior contract that it had the right to revise the terms & conditions for contractual workers.

 

How sure are you that SMRT already stated in Prior Contract that it had right to revise terms and conditions for Contractual Workers.

 

Also do you know how contract work? you will required the one signing the contract to agree.

 

This is not your typical handphone or Cable TV contract. (in fact that can be rebut if you really want to play punk)

 

 

The differences in pay could be due to different skills, training & other benefits, etc. I didn't say it was based on nationality. The article didn't point out that the china drivers were provided with accommodation and also chartered buses to bring them to work but not the malaysians. The malaysians have to either commute daily to work or find a place on their own. If u think the china drivers deserve the same pay, why don't u argue that the malaysian drivers deserve the same benefits too?

yeah it should, but isnt it obvious that SMRT is basing off nationality?

 

also speaking of accommodation, isnt that why they are paid lower. And that wasnt even the main problem.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Joseph22

[Manmaster]

The key reason for the strike was the difference in pay. The china drivers demanded to have the same pay as other foreign bus drivers as they felt that they were doing the same job. If SMRT caved in, then the next to strike would be the malaysian drivers as they were not getting the same benefits as the china drivers. I'm surprised that nobody cared for the welfare of our malaysian drivers when compared to the china drivers.