Skip to main content
 
About us
Search

Written Answer by Minister for Manpower Dr Tan See Leng to PQ on legislating the right to work from home

Employment practices

NOTICE PAPER NO. 1318 OF 2022 FOR THE SITTING ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2022
QUESTION NO. 3291 FOR ORAL ANSWER

MP: Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang

To ask the Minister for Manpower what are the unintended consequences which the Ministry is concerned about as a result of legislating the right to work from home.

Answer: 

  1. Flexible Work Arrangements are increasingly important in the workplace today. More employees see Flexible Work Arrangements as an important criterion in job selection. Employers are also recognising the importance of Flexible Work Arrangements in the competition for talent amidst a tight labour market. This is a positive development.
  2. The Member has asked about legislating the right to work-from-home, which is one of several types of Flexible Work Arrangements. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution in providing Flexible Work Arrangements as business needs differ across industries and roles. For instance, work-from-home is not practicable for certain roles, such as frontline work. Introducing legislation as suggested by the Member will introduce rigidities and this means that employers will not be able to decide which working arrangements best meet the needs of the business and other co-workers. Insisting that all companies here must allow work-from-home is not pragmatic given the differences across industries and firms and could end up stifling the growth and dynamism of our economy and economic opportunities for Singaporeans in the longer term.
  3. Without allowing employers to reject on valid and objective grounds, we also risk reducing the employability of those employees perceived to be more likely to exercise this right to work-from-home, such as those with caregiving needs.
  4. Countries such as UK, Australia and Netherlands, have legislated the right-to-request for Flexible Work Arrangements, including work-from-home, but not the definite right to Flexible Work Arrangements or work-from-home. This means that while employers must abide by certain processes when assessing requests for Flexible Work Arrangements, they have the prerogative to decide whether they can accede to the request.
  5. MOM has studied this carefully. There is indeed merit in strengthening the processes for employers to assess employees’ request for Flexible Work Arrangements, but we should do so without creating a litigious workplace culture where everything is governed by law. Mutual trust is important for Flexible Work Arrangements to work, and we should provide the space for employers and workers to discuss and find an approach that works for both parties.
  6. Hence, instead of legislation, Tripartite Partners are taking a more calibrated and supportive approach to promote Flexible Work Arrangements, including flexi-place, flexi-hours and flexi-load. As earlier announced this year, Tripartite Partners will introduce a new set of Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements by 2024. The Guidelines will require employers to fairly and properly consider Flexible Work Arrangement requests. This will assure employees that their requests for Flexible Work Arrangements will be seriously considered, while still allowing employers to assess Flexible Work Arrangement requests based on their business and operational needs.
  7. In the meantime, to prepare employers for the Guidelines, Tripartite Partners will also continue to provide resources and training to equip companies with the know-how to implement Flexible Work Arrangements in an effective and sustainable manner, including in the areas of HR management practices and job redesign.