Today is increment payday and everybody in the office receives a letter together with the usual computerised payslip announcing their increment for the year. It's one of the two sensitive times of the year where everyone has expectations and then usually gets disappointed...I doubt there are many out there thinking that they are being paid very well and that the increment rate or bonus payout is fair or satisfactory.
There are many protests happening around Hong Kong regarding the amount to be set as the minimum wage. Someone in the government side suggested HKD20/hr and had his whole family cursed by the workers. Then after much research on the market rate, they again suggested that HKD24/hr is fair. The workers and their representative unions are asking for HKD33/hr. Employers complain that's too expensive and suggest that it will be better to let the wage be set by the market forces instead.
What's the point of setting the minimum wage? Ok, let's say the government set the minimum wage at HKD33/hr, then the employers start to employ less workers to cut operation costs, and because of that unemployment rate goes up. Unemployed workers start to get desperate and offer to work for less, but the employers are still not employing because they cannot pay less than the stipulated rate...so what happens? I think it's really stupid. Why not let the market decides the rate by the forces of demand and supply?
I think the employment contract is a contract binding the employer and the employee. If the employee thinks that the company is underpaying him, he will try to find a better paying job and when he finds it, he resigns. If the company thinks that he is indispensable, they will try to retain him by matching his new offer or pay higher...but that will only happens when there is really a new offer. If the company thinks that they can do without that employee, they will let him leave and then gets someone else to take over or use a lower rate to employ another. This happens when the employee is over-qualified for the job.
Some companies pay more than the market rate so as to attract the best employees but they will not hestitate to fire when the employee does not perform. My company is different, they will pay the minimum market rate, gives the minimum welfare and fringe benefits so turnover rate is quite high but nobody has been indispensable to the company so far. So the question is : "Does the company need the employees more or does the employees need the company more?"
There are many protests happening around Hong Kong regarding the amount to be set as the minimum wage. Someone in the government side suggested HKD20/hr and had his whole family cursed by the workers. Then after much research on the market rate, they again suggested that HKD24/hr is fair. The workers and their representative unions are asking for HKD33/hr. Employers complain that's too expensive and suggest that it will be better to let the wage be set by the market forces instead.
What's the point of setting the minimum wage? Ok, let's say the government set the minimum wage at HKD33/hr, then the employers start to employ less workers to cut operation costs, and because of that unemployment rate goes up. Unemployed workers start to get desperate and offer to work for less, but the employers are still not employing because they cannot pay less than the stipulated rate...so what happens? I think it's really stupid. Why not let the market decides the rate by the forces of demand and supply?
I think the employment contract is a contract binding the employer and the employee. If the employee thinks that the company is underpaying him, he will try to find a better paying job and when he finds it, he resigns. If the company thinks that he is indispensable, they will try to retain him by matching his new offer or pay higher...but that will only happens when there is really a new offer. If the company thinks that they can do without that employee, they will let him leave and then gets someone else to take over or use a lower rate to employ another. This happens when the employee is over-qualified for the job.
Some companies pay more than the market rate so as to attract the best employees but they will not hestitate to fire when the employee does not perform. My company is different, they will pay the minimum market rate, gives the minimum welfare and fringe benefits so turnover rate is quite high but nobody has been indispensable to the company so far. So the question is : "Does the company need the employees more or does the employees need the company more?"
No comments:
Post a Comment