Mrsd Report on Wage Practices 2012

7/18/2019 Mrsd Report on Wage Practices 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mrsd-report-on-wage-practices-2012 1/55

Report on Wage Practices,

2012



COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Brief extracts from the report may be reproduced for non-

commercial use, provided the source is acknowledged. Request

for extensive reproduction should be made to:

Director

Manpower Research and Statistics Department

Ministry of Manpower

18 Havelock RoadSingapore 059764

Fax: 6317 1804

Email: [email protected]



Manpower Research and Statistics Department

MISSION

To provide timely and reliable

national statistical information on the labour market

to facilitate informed decision-making within the government and community-at-large

Statistical activities conducted by the Manpower Research and Statistics Departmentare governed by the provisions of the Statistics Act (Chapter 317). The Act



CONTENTS

Page

NOTATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS i

HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................................................. ii

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

Part I Annual Wage Changes

3 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3

4 Total And Basic Wage Changes ..................................................................................... 6

5 Annual Variable Component ........................................................................................ 12

6 Built-in Wage Increase for Employees Earning

Basic Monthly Salary of Up To $1,000 ....................................................................... 17



Notations

- : nil or negligibles : suppressed

Abbreviations

AWS : Annual Wage Supplement

CPF : Central Provident FundCPI : Consumer Price Index

DOS : Department of Statistics

GDP : Gross Domestic Product

MOM : Ministry of Manpower

MTI : Ministry of Trade and Industry

MVC : Monthly Variable Component

NRAF : Non Rank-and-FileNWC : National Wages Council

RAF : Rank-and-File

ULC Unit Labour Cost

Cat A : Establishment was profitable and did much better than in the previous year

Cat B : Establishment was profitable and did as well as in the previous year

Cat C : Establishment was profitable but did not do as well as in the previous year

Cat D : Establishment incurred a loss



HIGHLIGHTS

Annual Wage Changes

• Amid the tight labour market, total wages (including employer CPF contributions) in the private

sector rose by 4.2% in 2012. This was lower than the growth of 6.1% in 2011, reflecting the weaker

economic conditions in 2012. After adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

all items, real total wages (including employer CPF contributions) declined by 0.4% in 2012, after

rising by 0.9% in 2011. When adjusted using CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied

accommodation (OOA), which relates more directly to the actual cash expenditures of households,

real total wages (including employer CPF contributions) rose by 0.5%, after increasing by 1.9% in

2011.

• Over the long term, real wage increases have been supported by productivity growth. Labour

productivity grew on average by 1.6% per annum, exceeding the growth in real total wages

(including employer CPF contributions) of 1.2% per annum over the decade from 2002 to 2012 . In

the immediate post-SARS years, labour productivity grew strongly on the back of robust GDPgrowth. However, in the last 5 years, labour productivity shrank by 0.4% per annum as economic

growth was driven primarily by employment.

Wage Flexibility



Report on Wage Practices, 2012

1 Introduction

1.1 This report examines employers’ adoption of a flexible wage system and changes in their

employees’ wages in 2012. The findings are based on data from the Survey on Annual Wage

Changes carried out from December 2012 to March 2013 which effectively covered 4,694 privateestablishments each with at least 10 employees. This yielded a survey response rate of 90%. The

survey coverage and methodology are explained in Annex 1.

2 Background

Economic growth slowed, though employment creation remained high

2.1 Singapore’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.3% in 2012, moderating from

the 5.2% growth in 2011 (Chart 1). Inflation as measured by the change in consumer price index (CPI)

for all items was 4.6% in 2012, easing from the 5.2% in 2011. Excluding imputed rentals on owner-

occupied accommodation (OOA), which do not involve actual cash expenditures, inflation was 3.6% in

2012, lower than the 4.2% in 2011.



Chart 1: Key Economic Indicators, 2000-2012

(A) Change in GDP, CPI and Employment

(B) Unemployment Rate (Annual Average)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

GDP 9.0 - 1.2 4.2 4.6 9.2 7.4 8.6 9.0 1.7 - 0.8 14.8 5.2 1.3CPI (CPI excl. Imputed ren tals

on owner-oc cupied

accommodation)

1.3 1.0 - 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.5 1.0 2.1 6.6 0.6 2.8 5.2 4.6

Employment 5.3 0.0 - 1.1 - 0.6 3.3 5.1 7.6 9.4 8.1 1.3 3.9 3.9 4.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Per Cent

(1.7) (1.0) (-0.3) (0.7) (2.0) (0.6) (1.1) (2.2) (5.5) (-0.4) (3.3) (4.2) (3.6)



PART I ANNUAL WAGE CHANGES

3 Overview

Growth in wages slowed, amid weaker economic conditions

3.1 Amid the tight labour market, total wages (including employer CPF contributions) in the

private sector rose by 4.2% in 2012. This was lower than the growth of 6.1% in 2011, reflecting the

weaker economic conditions in 2012 (Chart 2).

3.2 Excluding employer CPF contributions, total wages (comprising basic wages and

bonuses) of private sector employees rose by 3.8% in 2012, after increasing by 5.3% in 2011.1 The

total wage rise in 2012 stemmed from a 4.5% increase in basic wages, which more than offset the

decline in bonuses (also known as annual variable component) from 2.32 months of basic wages in

2011 to 2.19 months in 2012.

Chart 2: Change In Total And Basic Wages, 2000-2012

5

6

7

8

9Per Cent



Wage gains weighed down by inflation

3.3 After adjusting for inflation, real total wages (including employer CPF contributions)declined by 0.4% in 2012, after rising by 0.9% in 2011. The adjustment for inflation was made using

the CPI for all items. When adjusted using CPI less imputed rentals on OOA, which relates more

directly to the actual cash expenditures of households, real total wages (including employer CPF

contributions) rose by 0.5%, after increasing by 1.9% in 2011.

3.4 Excluding employer CPF contributions, real total wages declined by 0.8%, while real

basic wages dipped by 0.1% in 2012. When adjusted for inflation using CPI less imputed rentals onOOA, the real total and basic wage changes were positive at 0.2% and 0.9% respectively (Chart 3).

Chart 3: Change In Real Total And Basic Wages, 2000-2012

0

5

10Per Cent



Over the long term, real wage increases have been supported by productivity growth

3.5 Amid slower GDP growth and continued high employment creation, labour productivitycontracted by 2.6% in 2012, after rising by 1.3% in 2011 and 11% in 2010, reflecting the volatility in

year-to-year change in labour productivity (Chart 4). Over the decade from 2002 to 2012, labour

productivity grew on average by 1.6% per annum, exceeding the growth in real total wages (including

employer CPF contributions) of 1.2% per annum (Table 1). In the immediate post-SARS years, labour

productivity grew strongly on the back of robust GDP growth. However, in the last five years, labour

productivity shrank by 0.4% per annum as economic growth was driven primarily by employment2.

Chart 4: Change In Labour Productivity And Real Wages, 2000-2012

-5

0

5

10

15

Per Cent



4 Total and Basic Wage Changes

Wage Changes by Type of Employees

Wage gap between RAF and non-RAF employees narrowed

4.1 Total wages rose for all three categories of employees in 2012, though lower than the

increases in 2011. Junior (JM) and senior management (SM) employees had higher total wage gains

(JM: 4.2%; SM: 3.8%) than rank-and-file (RAF) employees (3.7%). While the total wage gain for RAF

continued to lag non-RAF, the gap narrowed to 0.4%-point in 2012 from 1.2%-point in 2011.

4.2 Rank-and-file (RAF) employees saw higher basic wage gains in 2012 (4.3%) than in 2011

(4.0%), following the National Wages Council (NWC) recommendation to give a built-in wage increase

of at least $50 to low-wage employees earning basic monthly salary of up to $1,000. In contrast, junior

and senior management employees experienced lower basic wage increases (JM: 4.9%; SM: 4.0%)

than in 2011 (JM: 5.1%; SM: 4.3%). (Chart 5). This was the first time that basic wage growth

increased over the year for RAF while it slowed for junior and senior management, since comparabledata were first collected in 1998.

Chart 5: Total And Basic Wage Change, 2011 and 2012



Distribution of Establishments by Wage Change

Two in three establishments raised total wages, but the quantum of increase was smaller

4.3 Despite the more subdued economic conditions, the proportion of private establishments

that raised total wages of their employees was unchanged at 68% in 2012. However, the average

quantum of wage increase in these establishments at 5.8% was lower than 6.6% in 2011. The

proportion of establishments that cut wages in 2012 (9.0%) was broadly comparable to 2011 (8.5%),

with the quantum of wage cut at 4.4% and 4.3% respectively. The proportion that froze total wages

was 24%, broadly unchanged from a year ago (23%) (Chart 6).

Chart 6: Distribution Of Establishments By Wage Change And Extent Of Wage Change

8.5%9.0%

23.4%

68.1% 67.5%

23.5%

Distribution of Establishments by Total Wage

Change, 2011 and 2012

2 00 0 2 00 1 200 2 20 03 2 004 20 05 20 06 2 00 7 2 00 8 200 9 2 01 0 201 1 20 12-12.0

-8.0

-4.0

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

Per Cent

Extent of Total Wage Change of

Establishments Which Cut or Increased Total

Wages, 2000 - 2012

(A) Total Wage Change



Distribution of Establishments by Profit Status

Majority of establishments were profitable

4.4 Although economic conditions weakened in 2012, slightly over eight in ten (82%) private

establishments were profitable, unchanged from a year ago (Chart 7). This proportion remained

higher than during the recessionary years in 2009 (79%) and 2001 (65%). Generally, the proportion of

loss-making firms has been trending downward over the last decade.

Chart 7: Proportion Of Profitable And Loss-Making Establishments, 2000-2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per Cent

Pro fitable Firms 73.5 64.9 66.3 70.7 75.4 80.6 81.4 84.9 81.0 79.4 85.1 82.4 82.3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



Chart 8: Distribution Of Establishments By Profit Status, 2011 And 2012

Per Cent

Notes: (1) Based on private sector establishments that disclosed their profitability status in 2011 and 2012.(2) Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Wage Change by Profit Status

Wage changes were correlated with profitability

16.6

33.8

32.0

17.6

16.8

32.6

32.9

17.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cat A: Firm was pro fitable and did much better than in theprevi ous year

Cat B: Firm was pr ofitable and did as well as in the previousyear

Cat C: Firm was pro fitable but did not do as well as in theprevious year

Cat D: Firm incurred a loss

2011 2012



4.7 The majority of establishments raised wages, led by Category A (83%) and followed by

Category B (69%), Category C (65%) and Category D (55%) establishments. Less than half (46%) ofloss-making Category D establishments either froze or cut wages (Chart 10).

Chart 10: Distribution Of Establishments By Total Wage Change And Profit Status, 2012

Per Cent

Note: Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Category A : Firm was profitable and did much better than in the previous year

Category B : Firm was profitable and did as well as in the previous year

5.0

12.2

82.7

6.7

23.9

69.4

10.7

24.6

64.7

13.8

31.7

54.5 Cat A

Cat B

Cat C

Cat D

Wage Cut No Change Wage Increase



Chart 11: Total And Basic Wage Change By Industry, 2012

Total Wage Increase (%)

Quadrant 1Above-AverageTotal Wage Increase;

Below-AverageBasic Wage Increase

Quadrant 2Above-AverageTotal And BasicWage Increases

Quadrant 4Below-AverageTotal And BasicWage Increases

Quadrant 3Below-AverageTotal Wage Increase;

Above-AverageBasic Wage Increase



5 Annual Variable Component

Bonuses declined in 2012, amid the slower economic growth

5.1 Amid slower economic growth, the private sector paid out an annual variable component

(comprising the annual wage supplement and variable bonus) averaging 2.19 months of basic wages

in 2012, down 5.6% from the 2.32 months in 2011. Consequently, the annual variable component

formed a smaller share of total wages at 15.4% in 2012, than 16.2% in 2011 (Chart 12).

Chart 12: Annual Variable Component, 2000-2012

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Proportion of Total

Wage (%)

Months of Basic

Wage



Chart 13: Annual Variable Component As A Proportion Of Total Annual Wages, 2011 And 2012

Annual VariableComponent in Months ofBasic Wages

2011 2012

2.32(+6.9%)

2.19(-5.6%)

2.06(+7.3%)

1.90(-7.8%)

2.63

(+5.6%)

2.52

(-4.2%)

2.62(+4.8%)

2.50(-4.6%)

2.67(+8.1%)

2.56(-4.1%)

5.3 The proportion of private establishments that gave more than one month of annual

variable component was similar to the preceding year at 44% though proportionately fewer

establishments paid out more than two months of bonuses (Chart 14). The share of establishments

which did not pay any annual variable component or paid less than one month declined from 36% in

Notes: (1) Figures in brackets refer to percentage change in annual variable component over the year.(2) Non-rank-and-file employees comprise junior and senior management employees.

18.2%

17.9%

18.0%

14.7%

16.2%

17.6%

17.2%

17.4%

13.7%

15.4%

Senior

Management

JuniorManagement

Non-Rank-and-

File

Rank-and-File

All

2011 2012



Chart 14: Distribution Of Establishments By Quantum Of Annual Variable Component Paid,

2011 And 2012

Per Cent

Note : Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

21.0

8.0

6.7

19.9

21.3

13.1

10.0

20.2

7.5

6.5

21.9

22.9

12.1

8.8

0 10 20 30 40

None

> 0 to 0.5 months

> 0.5 to < 1 month

1 month

> 1 to 2 months

>2 to 3 months

> 3 months

Q u a n t u m P

a i d

2011 2012



Chart 15: Annual Variable Component By Profit Status, 2011 And 2012

Note : Based on private sector establishments that disclosed their profitability status in 2011 and 2012.

Annual Variable Component by Industry

Months of Basic Wage

2.41

2.44

2.40

1.20

2.34

2.38

2.15

1.36

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Cat A: Firm was p rofi table and did much better than inthe previous year

Cat B: Fi rm was pro fitable and did as well as in theprevious year

Cat C: Firm was profi table but did not do as well as inthe previous year

Cat D: Firm incurred a loss

2011 2012



Table 2: Annual Variable Component By industry, 2011 And 2012

Months of Basic Wages

Industry (SSIC 2010) Period

Months of Basic Wages

Total RAF NRAF

ALL INDUSTRIES2012 2.19 1.90 2.52

2011 2.32 2.06 2.63

Manufacturing2012 2.54 2.38 2.72

2011 2.62 2.44 2.82

Construction 2012 1.42 1.10 1.852011 1.59 1.36 1.82

Services2012 2.17 1.85 2.52

2011 2.31 2.01 2.65

Wholesale & Retail Trade2012 2.15 1.82 2.57

2011 2.19 1.91 2.54

Transportation & Storage2012 2.35 2.34 2.39

2011 2.88 2.88 2.90

Accommodation & Food Services2012 1.31 1.22 1.47

2011 1.20 1.08 1.42

Information & Communications2012 2.32 2.42 2.28

2011 2.39 2.40 2.38

Financial & Insurance Services2012 3.12 2.94 3.17

2011 3.35 3.28 3.37

Real Estate Services2012 1.90 1.43 2.99



6 Built-in Wage Increase For Employees Earning Basic Monthly Salary Of Up To$1,000

6.1 While noting the ongoing efforts by the government, union and employer groups to helplow wage workers raise their employabilty and incomes3, the NWC in its 2012/13 guidelines

recommends that establishments grant employees earning a basic monthly salary of up to $1,000, a

built-in wage increase of at least $50. For companies that are doing well, the NWC recommends that

they give these workers a larger increase.

Almost six in ten establishments gave wage increases to their employees earning basic

monthly salary of up to $1,000, including nearly three in ten which gave at least $50 built-inwage increase

6.2 As of December 2012, almost six in ten private establishments with employees earning a

monthly basic salary of up to $1,000 gave wage increases to these employees. This comprised nearly

half (48%) of private establishments that had given (40%) or decided to give4 (8.1%) a built-in wage

increase, and those that provided other forms of wage increases (11%) comprising one-off special

payment, additional bonus and/or additional allowance. Specifically, about three in ten (28%) gave atleast $50 built-in wage increases (Chart 16).

Chart 16: Distribution Of Establishments By Whether They Gave Built-In Wage Increase

To Employees Earning Basic Monthly Salary Of $1,000 And Below, 2012

P id d th f



Profitable firms more likely to give built-in wage increase

6.3 In line with the NWC recommendation, more profitable firms gave built-in wage increases to

their employees earning up to $1,000 than less profitable or loss-making firms. 64% of Category A

establishments that were more profitable than in the preceding year gave/decided to give4 the built-in

wage increase compared with 37% among loss-making Category D establishments (Table 3).

Table 3: Distribution Of Establishments By Whether They Gave Built-In Wage IncreaseTo Their Employees Earning Basic Monthly Salary Of $1,000 And Below, 2012

Per Cent

Estab

Yes No

Sub-Total

HadGiven

Quantum

Not YetDecided

OnQuantum

Sub-Total

Providedother

forms ofwage

increase*

Alreadypayingmarket

rate

Estabnot

perform-ing

well

Business/wage

costs willbe

impacted

Wageslocked-in

underexisting

contractssigned

withclients

Lessthan

$50

$50 &More

Total 48.4 40.2 12.5 27.7 8.1 51.6 11.2 20.4 16.6 12.2 2.9

By Profit Status

Cat A 63.6 49.0 11.0 38.0 14.6 36.4 9.1 19.1 1.7 11.1 1.9

C t B 52 5 43 4 13 1 30 3 9 2 47 5 12 7 24 1 3 2 11 0 2 8



6.4 Establishments in real estate services (70%), professional services (70%), manufacturing

(60%) and community, social & personal services (52%) were more likely to give/decided to give4 a

built-in wage increase to their employees earning $1,000 and below (Table 4). The converse was true

for establishments in construction (40%) and transportation & storage (39%).

Table 4: Distribution Of Establishments By Whether They Gave Built-In Wage IncreaseTo Their Employees Earning Basic Monthly Salary Of $1,000 And Below By Industry, 2012

Per Cent

Establishment

Yes No

Sub-Total

HadGiven

QuantumNot YetDecided

OnQuantum

Sub-Total

Providedother

forms ofwage

increase*

Alreadypayingmarket

rate

Estabnot

perform-ingwell

Business/wage

costs willbe

impacted

Wages

locked-inunder

existingcontracts

signedwith

clients

Lessthan$50

$50 &More

Total 48.4 40.2 12.5 27.7 8.1 51.6 11.2 20.4 16.6 12.2 2.9

Manufacturing 59.9 44.5 16.2 28.3 15.4 40.1 7.0 15.4 11.2 8.0 3.0

Construction 39.5 27.8 4.6 23.2 11.7 60.5 8.3 24.2 23.1 9.7 2.8

Services 47.2 41.4 13.1 28.4 5.8 52.8 12.9 20.4 17.0 13.4 2.9

Wholesale &Retail Trade

45.8 38.4 13.8 24.6 7.4 54.2 16.6 14.4 17.2 15.7 1.0

Transportation &Storage

38.7 35.2 7.4 27.8 3.5 61.3 29.3 30.5 5.0 16.1 -

Accommodation45 2 37 3 16 3 21 1 7 9 54 8 10 1 23 9 26 0 10 7 1 7



PART II WAGE FLEXIBILITY

7 Overview

7.1 This section of the report updates the progress of employers in restructuring their wage

system to be more flexible and performance based. Data on wage flexibility pertain to private sector

establishments each employing at least 25 workers.5

7.2 Tripartite partners representing employers, workers and the government in January 2004

made the following recommendations for employers to implement a flexible wage system to ensurecompetitiveness, as well as enhanced income and employability for workers:

(1) implement variable bonus linked to Key Performance Indicators (KPI)6;

(2) introduce the Monthly Variable Component (MVC) in wage structure;

(3) narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio for the majority of their employees to average of

1.5 or less.7

Recognising that establishments may require different forms of wage flexibility to meet their specific

circumstances, employers may choose to implement only the recommendations that are relevant to

them.

8 Adoption of Key Wage Recommendations



components. While SMEs continued to lag large establishments in implementation, the gap has

narrowed (Chart 17).

8.3 In December 2012, 15% of private sector employees were in establishments that had a

fully flexible wage system comprising all three key wage recommendations. Including employees in

establishments with two recommendations (30%), some 45% of private sector employees had at least

two wage recommendations in their wage structure, down slightly from 46% in December 2011, but

higher than the 39% in June 2004 (Chart 17).

8.4 Transportation & storage (92%), community, social & personal services (92%) and

accommodation & food services (91%) had among the highest share of employees with some form of

wage flexibility, while construction (77%) had the least. Details are in Appendix - Table 2.



Chart 17: Proportion of Employees by Number of Key Wage Recommendations Implemented,2004 – 2012

Per Cent

! 1 WageRecommendations

! 2 WageRecommendations

All 3 WageRecommendations

A l l I n d

u s t r i e s

E s t a b l i s h m e n t S i z e

75.6

81.382.6

81.183.3 83.7 83.6 85.1

89.185.7 87.2

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

39.1

43.5

49.247.3 46.1 46.0 45.0 45.3

48.846.4 44.9

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

12.4

15.0

22.0 21.4 20.8 19.317.0 17.0 18.4 16.8 15.4

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

63.1

72.1

72.9

68.373.4

76.9 75.078.6

81.9 78.880.6

85.0

89.2 89.790.290.1 88.690.4 89.9

94.390.7

91.8

3 64.3

8.25.7 6.0 5.4 6.1 5.8 6.5 6.2 5.5

19.124.1

32.2 32.6 31.0 29.125.5 25.1 27.0 24.4

22.2

21.2

24.5

28.925.0

26.0 28.5 26.6 27.7 30.125.3 25.7

52.8

59.6

64.1 63.1 60.0 58.5 59.5 58.262.5 61.6

58.2



Establishments that had not implemented any key wage recommendations were largely

satisfied with flexibility of their existing wage system

8.5 One in eight (13%) employees in the private sector were working in establishments that

did not implement any of the key wage recommendations (Table 5). The majority of them,

representing 11% of all private sector employees, were working in establishments that were satisfied

with their wage flexibility.

Table 5: Proportion of Employees in Establishments That Did Not ImplementAny Key Wage Recommendations, 2011 and 2012 (December)

Note: Figures may not sum up due to rounding

Period

Did NotImplement Any

Key WageRecommendation

Satisfied/Not SatisfiedWith Level of Flexibility

in Wage System

SatisfiedNot

Satisfied

All Industries2012 12.8 10.6 2.12011 14.3 11.2 3.1

By Establishment Size25-199Employees

2012 19.4 15.3 4.1

2011 21.2 15.4 5.7200 or MoreEmployees

2012 8.2 7.4 0.82011 9.3 8.1 1.2

Per Cent



8.6 Overall, nearly all (98%) private sector employees were working in establishments that

had either some form of wage flexibility (87%) or were satisfied with their wage flexibility even though

their establishments did not implement any key wage recommendations (11%) (Chart 18).

Chart 18: Proportion of Employees In Establishments With Some Form of Wage Flexibility Or WereSatisfied With Their Wage Flexibility Even Though Their Establishments Did Not Implement Any Key

Wage Recommendations, 2004 – 2012 (December)

93.2% 94.7% 95.5% 94.9% 95.7%94.3% 96.7% 96.9% 97.9%

81.3% 81.1% 83.3% 83.7% 83.6% 85.1% 89.1% 85.7% 87.2%

11.8% 13.2%11.4% 11.8% 11.3% 10.5% 7.6% 11.2% 10.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Satisfied Even Though Establishments Did No t Implement Any Key Wage Recommendations

With A t Least One Key Wage Recommendation



Table 6: Proportion Of Employees In Establishments That Did Not Implement Any Key WageRecommendations And Not Satisfied With Wage Flexibility By Intention To Implement, December 2012

Per CentNot

SatisfiedWithWage

Flexibility

Intention to Implement WageRecommendations

Yes No Not Aware

All Industries 2.1 0.1 1.5 0.5

By Establishment Size

25-199 Employees 4.1 0.2 2.8 1.1

200 or MoreEmployees 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.1

Note: Figures may not sum up due to rounding.

9 Implementation of Flexible Wage Components

Narrowing maximum-minimum salary ratio was the most common wage recommendation

adopted

9.1 In December 2012, nearly two in three (65%) private sector employees were in

establishments that had a narrow maximum-minimum salary ratio, up from 63% in December 2011

and 52% in June 2004. This was the most common flexible wage recommendation adopted, followed

by linking variable bonus to KPI. Nearly half (49%) of private sector employees had a wage system



Chart 19: Proportion of Employees by Key Wage Recommendations, 2004 – 2012

Per Cent

Note : Figures do not sum up to 100% as establishments can implement more than one key wage recommendation.

Maximum-Minimum SalaryRatio

MVC Variable Bonus Linked toKPI

A l l I n d u s t r i e s

B y E s t a b l i s h m e n t S i z e

52.2

59.3

60.8

59.660.2 62.4

57.8 59.064.4

62.5

65.1

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

32.9

33.539.4 36.0

37.2 34.7 33.8 34. 7 3 4.7 34.8 33.8

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

42.0

47.1

53.6 54.252.8

51.9 54.1 53.757.2

51.7

48.6

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

26.1

29.1 33.8

31.4

31.5 34.236.4 35.8 37.3

29.0 27.1

54.162.3

68.170.5 67.5 64.6

68.0 66.971.6 68.063.5

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

14.1

14.219.3 15.4 16.5 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.0 15.3 13.6

47.3

49.854.150.6 51.5 49.3 49.4 49.7 49.8 48.8 47.7

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

47.8

57.6

56.8

52.157.5 62.4

57.4

62.267.2 66.0

71.2

55.5

60.8 63.7

64.862.1 62.5

58.1

56.662.4 59.9 60.9

J u n 0 4

D e c 0 4

J u n 0 5

D e c 0 5

D e c 0 6

D e c 0 7

D e c 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

25-199 Employees ! 200 Employees



Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio

Seven in ten establishments had narrowed/were narrowing their maximum-minimum wageratio to 1.5 or less

9.3 The proportion of establishments that had narrowed/were narrowing the wage ratio for the

same job to 1.5 or less had been generally trending upwards from 47% in June 2004 to 66% in

December 2011 and further to 70% in December 2012. In 2012, these establishments employed 65%

of private sector employees, up from 63% a year ago and 52% in June 2004 (Chart 20).

Chart 20: Proportion of Employees and Establishments That Had Narrowed or Were Narrowing theMaximum- Minimum Salary Ratio to 1.5 or Less, 2004 - 2012

Per Cent

EstablishmentEmployee


52.2

59.3

60.8 59.6 60.2 62.4

57.8 59.0

64.4 62.5 65.1

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

47.1

56.5 56.5

53.0

58.0 61.6

57.762.3

67.6 66.3 70.2

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

Employee Establishment



Chart 21: Average Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio of the Rank-and-File,2004 – 2012 (December)

Had Narrowed / Were NarrowingTotal


B y E s t a b l i s h m e

n t S i z e

1.59 1.56 1.54 1.55 1.58 1.56 1.52 1.51 1.50

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

1.47 1.48 1.45 1.43 1.43 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.39

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

1.55 1.52 1.51 1.50 1.54 1.52 1.48 1.47 1.44

1.63 1.58 1.57 1.58 1.62 1.59 1.55 1.55 1.55

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

25-199 Employees ! 200 Employees

1.37 1.38 1.36 1.34 1.35 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.33

1.55 1.53 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.46 1.45 1.45 1.44

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2



Chart 22: Average Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio of Junior Management,2004 – 2012 (December)

Had Narrowed / Were NarrowingTotal

A l l I n

d u s t r i e s

B y E s t a b l i s h m e n t S i z e

1.681.70 1.72 1.67 1.70 1.80

1.62 1.61 1.63

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

1.58 1.60 1.59 1.54 1.51 1.49 1.48 1.51 1.47

D e c - 0 4

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

1.61 1.59 1.68 1.58 1.62 1.59 1.54 1.54 1.50

1.73 1.75 1.73 1.73 1.751.93

1.67 1.66 1.70

c - 0 4

c - 0 5

c - 0 6

c - 0 7

c - 0 8

c - 0 9

c - 1 0

c - 1 1

c - 1 2

1.48 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.41 1.38

1.65 1.68 1.65 1.60 1.57 1.54 1.52 1.57 1.53

c - 0 4

c - 0 5

c - 0 6

c - 0 7

c - 0 8

c - 0 9

c - 1 0

c - 1 1

c - 1 2



Variable Bonus Linked to KPI

Large establishments more likely to link variable bonus to KPI

9.8 Close to three in ten (28%) private establishments had adopted the recommendation to

formulate and communicate to their employees KPIs for the payment of variable bonus, down from

30% in December 2011 (Chart 23). The adoption of this wage recommendation was more prevalent

in large establishments (54%) than SME (24%).

9.9 By employee count, 49% of private sector employees were in establishments that had

variable bonus linked to KPI. Industries such as financial & insurance services (77%), information &

communications (73%) and professional services (60%) had among the highest share of employees

with variable bonus linked to KPI. On the other hand, the employee coverage in construction (18%),

administrative & support services (29%) and real estate services (37%) were significantly below the

overall average (Appendix – Table 3).

9.10 While not having a set of KPIs for the payment of variable bonus, another 19% of private

establishments employing 17% of employees, used indicators such as annual profit, revenue and

productivity as general reference for payment of variable bonus and communicated these to their

employees. This was up from 17% of establishments employing 14% of employees in December

2011.



Chart 23: Proportion of Employees and Establishments That Formulated and Communicated KPI forPayment of the Variable Bonus, 2004 – 2012

Per CentEstablishmentEmployee


B y E s t a b l i s h m e n t S i z

e

42.047.1

53.6 54.2 52.8 51.9 54.1 53.7 57.2 51.7(65.5)

48.6(65.9)

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

25.9

29.4 33.1 31.8 32.1 33.736.2 35.0 36.5 29.6

(46.6) 27.7

(46.8)

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

26.1

29.1

33.831.4

31.5 34.2 36.4 35.8 37.329.0

(46.3)27.1(46.3)

54.1

62.3

68.170.5

67.564.6

68.0 66.971.6 68.0

(79.4) 63.5

(79.4)

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2

23.8

26.930.1 28.3 28.5 30.9 33.2 31.9 33.0 25.9

(43.3)24.0

(43.4)

41.850.9

54.2 56.7 57.050.9

58.6 58.3

62.9

57.0(70.9)

54.4(71.0)

J u n - 0 4

D e c - 0 4

J u n - 0 5

D e c - 0 5

D e c - 0 6

D e c - 0 7

D e c - 0 8

D e c - 0 9

D e c - 1 0

D e c - 1 1

D e c - 1 2



Monthly Variable Component

One in seven establishments covering one in three private sector employees had MVC

9.11 One in seven (14%) private establishments had implemented the MVC, covering one in

three (34%) private sector employees in December 2012, down from the corresponding 16% and 35%

the year before. However, this was substantially higher than the 4.1% of private establishments

covering only 9.6% of employees in 1999, when the recommendation was first introduced. Large

establishments (32%) were more likely to implement MVC than SMEs (11%) (Chart 24).

9.12 Community, social & personal services (58%) and financial & insurance services (56%)continued to have the highest coverage of employees, with at least half of their workforce having MVC

in their wage structure. In contrast, construction (11%), information & communications (17%),

administrative & support services (23%) and wholesale & retail trade (24%) had the least coverage

(Appendix – Table 3).

Chart 24: Proportion of Employees and Establishments With MVC, 1999 – 2012

Per Cent EstablishmentEmployee



MVC As A Proportion Of Monthly Basic Wages

Close to 30% of total wages in MVC establishments were variable

9.13 Establishments with MVC on average set aside 9.9% of monthly basic wages as MVC for

majority of their employees in 2012, comparable to 10% in 2011. This was substantially higher than

the 2.6% in December 2000 when the data were first collected (Chart 25).

Chart 25: MVC as a Proportion of Monthly Basic Wages in Establishments With MVC,2000 – 2012 (December)

9.910.010.09.69.79.29.0

8.1

6.8

5.4

4.03.8

2.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Per Cent



Triggers for MVC Cuts/Restoration

9.15 The MVC was introduced to enable companies to adjust monthly wages in response to

changes in the business environment without having to wait till the end of the year to adjust the

Annual Variable Component. The ability to trigger MVC cuts and restorations through clear and

appropriate indicators/guidelines is therefore important. As of December 2012, about 63% of

employees in MVC establishments had indicators/guidelines in their wage structure for the cut and

restoration of MVC, up from 61% in December 2011, after stabilising at 59% from 2008 to 2010.

Table 7: Distribution Of Employees With MVC By With/Without Indicators/Guidelines For The Cut AndRestoration Of The MVC, 2011 And 2012 (December)

Per Cent

Period Yes No

All2012 63.4 36.6

2011 61.2 38.8


25-199 Employees2012 66.4 33.6

2011 62.2 37.8

200 or MoreEmployees

2012 62.8 37.2

2011 61.0 39.0

Note : Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.



Table 8: Distribution of Establishments and Employees in Establishments by Intention to ImplementMVC, December 2012

Establishment Count

Per Cent

TotalWithMVC

Decided/ in theProcess of

Implementation

Still UnderConsideration

PreviouslyWith MVCBut Was

LaterRemoved

No Wishto

Implement

NotAware

ofMVC

All 100.0 13.6 0.6 9.0 1.1 65.3 10.4


25-199Employees

100.0 11.0 0.5 9.2 1.1 66.7 11.5

200 or MoreEm lo ees

100.0 32.1 0.7 7.8 0.9 55.2 3.1

Employee Count

Per Cent

TotalWithMVC

Decided/ in TheProcess of

Implementation

Still UnderConsideration

PreviouslyWith MVCBut Was

LaterRemoved

No Wishto

Implement

NotAware

ofMVC

All 100.0 33.8 0.5 6.7 0.9 53.1 5.0




10 Information Sharing

Majority of employees were working in establishments that shared information

10.1 Overall, slightly over three in four (76%) employees were working in establishments that

shared information on their company’s performance with their employees in 2012, comparable over

the last few years. The corresponding percentages were higher for employees working in larger

establishments (88%) than the SMEs (59%) (Chart 26).

Chart 26: Proportion of Establishments and Employees That Share Information With Employees,1999 – 2012 (December)

Per Cent



70.1 71.3

74.7 74.478.2

76.1 77.8 78.575.9 76.9 75.2 75.8 76.3 76.0

53.3 54.2

59.3 58.863.9

58.562.8 63.2 62.5 63.5 60.8 60.2 61.3 59.3



Information sharing more prevalent among establishments with a flexible wage system

10.2 Information sharing continued to be more prevalent among establishments with a flexible

wage system. 62% of establishments with at least one wage recommendation shared informationwith their employees compared with 47% of establishments without any wage recommendations

(Table 9).

Table 9: Proportion of Establishments and Employees in Establishments That Shared Information WithEmployees by Type of Wage System, December 2012

Per Cent

All EstablishmentsWith at Least One Wage

RecommendationNo Wage

Recommendation

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

All 59.3 76.0 62.3 79.0 47.3 55.9


25-199 Employees 56.5 59.0 59.2 62.1 46.2 46.3


79.7 87.8 81.9 89.3 62.0 71.7

10.3 Overall, one in three (32%) private establishments shared information at least annually

(Chart 27). In terms of employee coverage, close to half (46%) of private sector employees were

working in such establishments This information sharing was more prevalent in large establishments



Employee Count

Per Cent

AllEstablishments


25-199Employees


Total 76.0 59.0 87.8

Regularly 45.7 31.1 55.8

Annually 15.3 13.1 16.7

Half-yearly 7.3 5.2 8.8

Quarterly 19.1 8.3 26.5

Monthly 4.0 4.5 3.7

As and when necessary 30.2 27.7 31.9

Others 0.2 0.2 0.1

Note : Figures may not sum up due to rounding.

Chart 27: Proportion of Establishments and Employees That Shared Information at Least Annually,

1999 – 2012 (December)

Per Cent




11 Conclusion

11.1 The tight labour market continued to raise workers’ wages, but the pace of increase

moderated in 2012, amid the weaker economic conditions. After adjusting for inflation using

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items, real wages dipped in 2012, but increased slightly when

adjusted using CPI less imputed rentals on OOA. Over the long term, real wage increases have been

supported by productivity growth.

11.2 A large majority of employees in the private sector were under some form of flexible wage

system in 2012, following the general uptrend in the implementation of flexible wage measures

recommended by the tripartite partners in 2004. Having a narrow maximum-minimum salary ratio was

the most common flexible wage recommendation adopted, followed by linking variable bonus to KPI

and the MVC.



APPENDIX

Table 1: Total And Basic Wage Change By Industry, 2011 And 2012

Per Cent

Industry (SSIC 2010) PeriodTotal Wage Change Basic Wage Change

Total RAF NRAF Total RAF NRAF

ALL INDUSTRIES2012 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.3 4.6

2011 5.3 4.7 5.9 4.4 4.0 4.9

Manufacturing2012 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.2 4.5

2011 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.0 3.8 4.3

Construction2012 3.7 2.9 4.9 3.6 2.8 4.7

2011 4.2 3.6 4.9 3.9 3.4 4.4

Services2012 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.6

2011 5.6 5.0 6.3 4.5 4.0 5.1

Wholesale & RetailTrade

2012 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.1

2011 4.6 4.3 5.0 4.1 4.0 4.4

Transportation &

Storage

2012 1.7 1.9 1.4 4.7 5.0 3.9

2011 7.4 7.1 8.1 3.8 3.8 3.9Accommodation &Food Services

2012 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.5

2011 4.5 4.5 4.4 3.8 4.0 3.4

Information &Communications

2012 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.6

2011 4.6 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.7

Financial &Insurance Services

2012 4.4 4.2 4.5 5.1 5.0 5.2

2011 9.1 8.1 9.4 7.4 6.0 7.7



Table 2: Proportion of Employees With Some Form of Wage Flexibility by Industry,

2011 And 2012 (December) Per Cent

Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

Some Form ofWage

Number of Key WageRecommendations Implemented

Flexibility

(A) + (B) + (C) Three (A) Two (B) One (C)

ALL INDUSTRIES2012 87.2 15.4 29.5 42.3

2011 85.7 16.8 29.6 39.3

Manufacturing2012 89.8 20.0 26.0 43.8

2011 87.2 19.5 30.8 36.9

Construction2012 77.3 4.5 13.6 59.2

2011 75.5 6.7 11.3 57.5

Services2012 89.0 16.6 34.7 37.7

2011 87.6 18.0 33.6 36.0

Wholesale & Retail Trade2012 88.7 9.8 37.5 41.3

2011 88.4 10.8 37.0 40.6

Transportation & Storage2012 92.4 24.5 41.2 26.6

2011 92.8 26.6 38.3 27.9

Accommodation & Food Services2012 90.6 29.8 25.8 35.0

2011 90.6 29.5 19.7 41.5

Information & Communications2012 89.7 3.8 43.8 42.1

2011 88.9 2.4 40.0 46.5



Table 3: Proportion of Employees in Establishments by Key Wage Recommendations and Industry,

2011 And 2012 (December)

Per Cent

Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

WithMaximum-Minimum

SalaryRatio

With MVC

WithVariableBonus

Linked toKPI

ALL INDUSTRIES2012 65.1 33.8 48.6

2011 62.5 34.8 51.7

Manufacturing 2012 64.8 35.5 55.62011 65.0 36.3 55.6

Construction2012 71.2 10.9 17.7

2011 66.5 12.6 21.1

Services2012 64.0 38.9 54.0

2011 60.4 39.3 57.4

Wholesale & Retail Trade2012 68.7 24.0 53.2

2011 64.8 26.0 56.2

Transportation & Storage2012 82.7 49.1 50.9

2011 67.6 51.0 65.8

Accommodation & Food Services2012 86.3 38.5 51.2

2011 83.9 40.1 45.3

Information & Communications2012 50.6 17.2 73.4

2011 48.5 11.1 74.0

Financial & Insurance Services2012 34.2 56.1 77.1

2011 50.2 53.9 79.6

Real Estate Services2012 77.5 33.2 36.6



ANNEX 1

SURVEY COVERAGE

AND METHODOLOGYSURVEY ON ANNUAL WAGE CHANGES, 2012

Introduction

The Survey on Annual Wage Changes, 2012 was conducted by the Manpower Research andStatistics Department of the Ministry of Manpower under the Statistics Act (Chapter 317). The surveyfieldwork was conducted from 18 December 2012 to 4 March 2013.

Objective

The survey was conducted to obtain information on employers’ wage practices relating to the adoptionof flexible wage measures and the payment of basic wage increases and bonuses in 2012.

Coverage

The survey covered a sample of private sector establishments with at least 10 employees. Some4,694 private establishments responded to the survey. These establishments employed 1,169,400employees which included 582,000 full-time employees on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) schemewith at least one year in service (comprising 300,800 rank-and-file employees, 222,100 junior and59,000 senior management staff). The survey response rate was 90%.



Data Collected

The establishments were asked to provide information on the average basic wage change, Annual

Wage Supplement (AWS) and variable bonus to employees in 2012. The information collectedpertains to full-time employees on the CPF scheme who had been with the establishment for at leastone year as at 30 Nov 2012.

The establishments were also surveyed on the adoption of the three key recommendations of theTripartite Taskforce on Wage Restructuring namely:

(i) introduce Annual Variable Component (AVC) such as variable bonus in the wage system thatis linked to Key Performance Indicators (KPI) i.e. have formulated, communicated and

explained to their employees the KPI for the payment of the variable bonus;(ii) introduce the monthly variable component (MVC) in the wage structure; and(iii) narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio for majority of their employees to an average of 1.5

or less.

Other information collected include establishments’ satisfaction with the level of flexibility of the wagesystem, the percentage of monthly basic wages set aside to form the monthly variable component,and maximum-minimum salary ratio of the most common job.

The survey included new questions to determine whether establishments gave a built-in wageincrease in 2012 to employees earning a basic monthly salary of up to $1,000 in 2011.

Analysis

The first part of the report on annual wage changes is based on private establishments with at least10 workers.





Concepts and Definitions

Rank-and-File Employees: This includes employees who are in technical,

clerical, sales, service, production, transport,cleaning and related positions. They are notemployees in managerial or executive positions.

Junior Management Staff: This refers to executives and managers who do not holdsenior managerial responsibilities. They do not havesubstantial influence over hiring, firing, promotion,transfer, reward or discipline of employees.

Basic Wages: This refers to the total basic pay before deduction ofemployee CPF contributions and personal income tax. Itexcludes employer CPF contributions, bonuses, overtimepayments, commissions, allowances (e.g. shift, food,housing and transport), other monetary payments andpayments-in-kind.

Annual Wage Supplement (AWS): This refers to the annual payment usually made atyear-end and is commonly known as the 13th monthallowance.

Variable Bonus: This refers to the payment given over and above theAWS or 13th month allowance. It includes incentivepayments and ‘ang pows’, but excludes AWS. Thevariable bonus is usually linked to company and/orindividual performance and may vary from year to year.



Monthly Variable Component (MVC): This refers to the component of monthly basic wages thatcan be adjusted expeditiously in response to changing

business conditions. It should attract CPF, overtime pay,allowances, etc. The MVC can be built-up through wageincrease or ‘hived off’ from basic wages. Establishmentscan also implement a cut in basic wages by introducingthe cut as a reduction in MVC.

Formulae

•

Basic Wage Change in 2012

End 2012 Basic Wages – End 2011 Basic Wages

= x 100%

End 2011 Basic Wages

• Total Wage Change in 2012

2012 Total Wages – 2011 Total Wages

= x 100%

2011 Total Wages

where

Total Wages = Annual Basic Wages + Annual Variable Component (i.e. Annual Wage

Supplement and Variable Bonus)

FEEDBACK FORM



FEEDBACK FORM

Report Title: Report on Wage Practices, 2012

1. How would you rate this report in terms of :

Excellent Good Average Poora) Relevance to your work

b) Providing useful insights on prevailinglabour market trends/development

c) Ease of understanding

2. Which area(s) of the report do you find most useful? Please provide reasons.

3. How do you find the length of the report?

Too detailed Just right Too brief

Excellent Good Average Poor4. Overall, how would you rate this report?

5. What additional information (if any) would you like us to include in our future issues?

!"#$ &'(')#'* +$,'- &'#."-/'#



!"#$ &'(')#'* +$,'- &'#."-/'#

!

"#$%&'() +,#,-.,-/. -$ 0)-(1 2 3453 4674873453

9#:&;) <&)/( -$ +-$=#%&)(2 3453> ?57457345?

9#:&;) @;)$&A() @-B( +()-(.2 3448 ,& 3453 457467345?

C(,-)(B($, #$D C( >(B%E&FB($, G)#/,-/(.2 3455 3474H73453

<&/;. &$ IED() G(&%E( J$ #$D I;, &1KB%E&FB($,

3L74H7344M

N;#E-,F &1 KB%E&FB($, O)(#,-&$ 1&) +-$=#%&)(O-,-P($.

3L7437344M

KB%E&FB($, &1 +-$=#%&)( O-,-P($.2 G()B#$($,C(.-D($,. #$D <&)(-=$().2 5LLH ,& 3448

3L7437344M

G)(B-;B &$ <-(ED. &1 +,;DFQ @R( C(,;)$. ,&S-=R() KD;/#,-&$ -$ +-$=#%&)(

5L7457344H

@-,E( T#,( &1 C(E(#.(

9#:&;) "&:-E-,F ?574U73454

KB%E&F() +;%%&),(D @)#-$-$=2 3454 4374L73455

+-$=#%&)(#$. -$ ,R( V&)W1&)/(X 5575473455

X !"#$ &'&() #$ ' *+,,'-+)'.#/( (00+). -(.1((2 3'2&+1() 4($(')*" '25

6.'.#$.#*$ 7(&').8(2. '25 6#29'&+)( 7(&').8(2. +0 6.'.#$.#*$

C(%&), &$ V#=(. -$ +-$=#%&)(2 3455 3L74873453

+-$=#%&)( Y(#):&&W &1 "#$%&'() +,#,-.,-/.23453

3L74873453

"&)( )(E(#.(. #)( #A#-E#:E( &$E-$( Z R,,%Q77'''!B&B!=&A!.=7B).D7%;:E-/#,-&$

+;:./)-:( ,& &;) (B#-E #E(), 1&) ,R( E#,(., )(E(#.(

O&$D-,-&$. &1 KB%E&FB($,2 3453 3475373453

[&: \#/#$/-(.2 3453 3M7457345?

!"#$%& $( )*+" ,%*-&.-"/0 1231

T#,( &1 C(E(#.(Q 4U [;$ 345?

@R-. )(%&), (]#B-$(. (B%E&F().^ #D&%,-&$ &1 # 1E(]-:E( '#=( .F.,(B #$D

/R#$=(. -$ ,R(-) (B%E&F((.^ '#=(. -$ 3453! @&%-/. /&A()(D -$/E;D( ,&,#E #$D

:#.-/ '#=( /R#$=(.2 :&$;.(. #$D '#=( 1E(]-:-E-,F!

45#6$75"(& 8.&9*&.$(0 :.%/& ;9*%&"% 123<

T#,( &1 C(E(#.(Q ?4 _%) 345?

@R-. `;#),()EF )(E(#.( %)&A-D(. %)(E-B-$#)F (.,-B#,(. &1 W(F -$D-/#,&). &$ ,R(

B#$%&'() .-,;#,-&$ /&A()-$= ;$(B%E&FB($,2 (B%E&FB($, #$D )(D;$D#$/F!

9#:&;) "#)W(,2 3453 5U74?7345?

C(D;$D#$/F #$D C(>($,)F -$,& KB%E&FB($,2 3453 3U7467345?

Documents

Mrsd Report on Wage Practices 2012