It appears that the current thinking is that the Government's Progressive Wage Model (PWM), or minimum wage-plus, and any proposal of a universal minimum wage to raise the earnings of lower-income workers are mutually exclusive (Pritam calls for universal minimum wage starting at $1,300 for S'poreans, Oct 13).
I believe that it may not be so as the two models could be integrated by incorporating a "living wage" component to the PWM to become a hybrid model. This could be called PWM-plus.
Assuming that the required minimum or living wage is indeed $1,300, the proposed workgroup comprising government officials, unionists and employers could conduct job evaluation exercises to establish an objective and fair market value of the jobs in sectors that currently pay their workers less than $1,300.
After the job evaluation exercises, compare the fair market value of the jobs evaluated against the said $1,300.
If the fair market value of the jobs evaluated is higher than $1,300, employers must pay their workers equitably at the higher market rates.
But if the fair market value is indeed lower than $1,300, the Government could top up the difference by tweaking the existing Workfare Income Supplement scheme.
Career paths for job advancements and wage increases, like those in the current PWM, could still be created for sectors deemed suitable.
This integrated PWM-plus model would ensure that workers in "high-value" jobs are paid equitably at fair market rates above $1,300, while those in "low-value" jobs would still get at least $1,300 through government subsidies. And this would include scope for future job advancements and wage increases.
Such a hybrid model should not erode our competitiveness significantly as employers would merely be required to pay their workers equitably at fair market rates independent of whether these rates are above or below $1,300.
More importantly, PWM-plus could help to mitigate our class divide and social inequality, and the government subsidies needed would be money well spent.
Ng Chee Kheon
