Minimum wage saga continues..

WE refer to the letters written by Samsuddin Bardan of the Malaysian Employers Federation (The Star, Sept 30), the Secretariat, National Wages Consultative Council (The Star, Oct 2) and Peter Raiappan (The Star, Oct 27) on the issue of minimum wage.

Come January, most of us will be concerned as to whether the minimum wages as previously announced by the Government will be enforced on our service industry e.g. security guards, waiters in hotels and restaurants or other workers in similar industries that require them to work 24 hours, including Sundays and public holidays.

In the case of security guards, it must be noted that most of these guards work 30 days a month as opposed to most regular employees who work 26 days.

The guards in particular will have to work the extra four days to claim the four days overtime payment (in addition to the daily four-hour overtime) to obtain that extra cash for a take-home salary of more than RM1,000 a month.

The security service employers are indeed in a dilemma.

Besides the overtime payment, the security companies will have to fork out additional expenditure such as the “post allowance” to the guards particularly for those assignments which are located in isolated places, transport allowance to guards for the use of their own transport, and not to mention the “attendance allowance” as an incentive to compel the guards to avoid unnecessary absenteeism. There are also cases where a “laundry allowance” is given to ensure that the guards are in their most presentable uniforms while on duty.

All this amounts to additional unavoidable costs to the security companies.

We, the security operators, are most concerned about the take-home salary of the guards and not just the basic salary of RM900 a month (less EPF and Socso deductions).

This is precisely why we encourage the security guards to work 12 hours (with four hours overtime payment daily) for them to earn the extra cash. Even the Nepalese guards that we employ work the 12 hour shift for the same reason.

We believe that even if we compel the guards to work for only eight hours a day, I am sure they will find some other part-time job to earn the extra cash during their time off.

This may not be healthy as they will most likely be too tired to effectively perform their duties as security guards in their regular assignments.

This may even result in them skipping work, which is worse.

Security guards are posted everywhere in the country. They are not stationed in one place like the factory workers.

Some people may not be too concerned about security but the role of these guards should not be taken for granted.

They are important in our society to prevent crime amidst the worrying level of crime in the country lately.

We are indeed in a dilemma whether we can continue to sustain our security service industry in the face of the above-mentioned escalating operating costs if the Government insists on proceeding with the minimum wage of RM900 requirement.

We therefore, urge the Government to exclude the security service industry and other similar industries from the implementation of this RM900 minimum wages scheme due to the extra costs to be incurred from the additional four hours of daily overtime work.

They also work during public holidays and Sundays.

These will incur extra double overtime which in return their take home pay is more than RM900.

We hope the Government to consider our appeal seriously to postpone the implementation of the new salary scheme which is due on Jan 1.

It is for the good of the security service industry and for the economy in general.

By DATUK RAHMAT ISMAIL Hon Life President (International) Asian Professional Security Association - The Star Nov  28, 2012

Related posts:

Rightways: Malaysia's minimum wage saga continues 

 Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications

Malaysia's Minimum wage's benefits and effects
Are Malaysian Employment Laws Challenging?
What's minimum wage in Malaysia?

Malaysia's minimum wage saga continues

AFTER all the debate between proponents and opposers and the accompanying fanfare which dragged on for years, the Human Resources Minister finally issued an order in July 2012, declaring that Minimum Wages need to be paid from January 2013.

While the intention was to ensure that all employees will be paid a certain minimum salary, RM900 in peninsular Malaysia, the way in which the order was worded has created problems and headaches for employers, not so much for those who are not paying the minimum wage of RM900 currently, but for employers whose current remuneration package for employees is far above that of RM900.

The blame for this rests squarely on the formulators of the law and the order.

This is further compounded by the recent issuance of so called “Guidelines – method of implementation of the Minimum Wages Order 2012”.

The National Wages Consultative Council Act, (the Act) under which the Minimum Wage Order has been promulgated, states that “wages” has the same meaning as that found in the Employment Act 1955.

“Wages” as defined in the Employment Act 1955 means basic wages and all other payments in cash payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service but does not include the listed exclusions.

However, the Act has also provided a definition for “minimum wages”, to mean, the basic wages to be or as determined under the order made by the Minister under Section 23.

Section 24(2) of the Act goes further to state that where the basic wages in an employment contract is lower than the minimum wage rate as specified in the Minimum Wages Order the minimum wage rate (RM900) shall be substituted for the ‘basic wage’ in the employment contract.

There are many employers, who for a variety of reasons, provide a low basic wage but top up the remuneration package with a variety of other payments such as commissions, allowances, service charge, shift allowance and other payment in cash.

In many instances, the calculation of the additional payments are based on the current “basic wage”.

At the end of each month, these employees earn much more than the minimum RM900.

Often employers fix a low basic wage but pay high rates for other payments, the calculation of which, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes linked to the basic wage. They do so to encourage productivity.

They are not short paying their employees but that is how the wage payments are structured in the country with each industry having its own peculiar structure.

Many instances can be cited where employees paid as much as RM1,500 or even more per month.

The Minimum Wages Order requires that the “basic wage” be now moved up to RM900.

The introduction of minimum wages was never intended to affect these good employers but to compel the ones who pay below RM900 to raise the wages of their employees to a minimum level of RM900 per month.

The Minimum Wages Order in Para 6, however, goes on to suggest that employers and employees and where trade unions exist, could go about and re-negotiate a restructuring of wages before the coming into force of the order.

How on earth are employers, who do not have a union, going to go about this renegotiating with their employees? What if they disagree?

Would any employee or trade union in the right frame of mind agree to raise his current basic (which is lower than RM900) to the new figure of RM900 (thereby helping the employer to conform with the requirement of the Minimum Wages Order) and permit all the other benefits that he is receiving (which is related to the basic) to be lowered so that the end result is that he is placed at a position, (in terms of total remuneration received at the end of the month ) no different than the original amount that he is currently receiving?

The Minimum Wages Order has indeed created confusion in the labour market and that is putting it very mildly. Fortunately, the order comes into force only in January 2013, giving time for corrective measures.

In an attempt to provide some clarity and explanation to this confused state of affairs, the National Wages Consultative Council exercising the powers provided under Section 4(2) of the Act has decided that apart from the matters contained in the Minimum Wages Order 1212 it shall issue some guideline relating to the method of implementation of the order.

Nowhere in Section 4(1) (which refers to the functions of the council) are powers given to it to elaborate, explain, modify or issue guidelines relating to the method of implementing the Minimum Wages Order issued by the Minister under Section 23(1).

If at all the council wants to make any recommendations it could exercise the provision under Section 22(1)(e).

In such an instance it has to make its recommendations to the Government through the Minister.

The Minister, if he agrees with the recommendation, can then issue an order as provided for under Section 22(1). .

Clearly, the drafting of the Minimum Wages Order could have been done much more professionally bearing in mind the objective of the introduction of the minimum wage law.

It is still not too late to remedy the situation and help relieve the unnecessary turmoil the vast majority of employers are now facing.

Up till now so much management time has been lost trying to find answers to the hundreds of questions raised by law abiding employers in the different industries for which no one in the ministry has been able to provide clear-cut answers.

Needless to say, any law enacted must be simple, well drafted, easy to understand and achieve what it is set out to do.

If it creates problems, especially for those who ought not to be affected by it, then something is fundamentally wrong with it.

PETER RAIAPPAN Kuala Lumpur

Related posts:

 Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications
Malaysia's Minimum wage's benefits and effects
Are Malaysian Employment Laws Challenging?
What's minimum wage in Malaysia?