[/caption]
I came across this sobering story ("Part-timers run equal risk but no medical benefits", 30/05/2009, Pg. A41) in the Straits Times Forum which set me thinking. This letter was written by a parent in response to his/her son's predicament when he was injured at work. Essentially, being a "part-time" worker, the son had to face a double jeopardy because:
1) He had to pay for ALL the expenses incurred (such as the taxi-fare to the hospital, the medical fees and the follow-up treatment) as the employer did not provide any medical benefits for 'part-timers'.
2) Although he was granted 10 days MC, that translates to a loss of 10 days worth of income as he is paid according to the hours he worked.
The central question that this incident raises is who should be the one that bears the burden of providing medical benefits? Is it the individual employee, or the employer? In fact, my opinion is that the party who faces the risk of greater loss should be the one who bears the burden. Put simply - you might risk losing your life and limb, while your employer risk losing...an employee? Out of a whole lot. And most probably someone not even remotely related to the boss. Get the picture? Read more...[caption id="attachment_2620" align="alignright" width="132" caption="Photo by Fuyoh"][/caption]
I came across this sobering story ("Part-timers run equal risk but no medical benefits", 30/05/2009, Pg. A41) in the Straits Times Forum which set me thinking. This letter was written by a parent in response to his/her son's predicament when he was injured at work. Essentially, being a "part-time" worker, the son had to face a double jeopardy because:
1) He had to pay for ALL the expenses incurred (such as the taxi-fare to the hospital, the medical fees and the follow-up treatment) as the employer did not provide any medical benefits for 'part-timers'.
2) Although he was granted 10 days MC, that translates to a loss of 10 days worth of income as he is paid according to the hours he worked.
The central question that this incident raises is who should be the one that bears the burden of providing medical benefits? Is it the individual employee, or the employer? In fact, my opinion is that the party who faces the risk of greater loss should be the one who bears the burden. Put simply - you might risk losing your life and limb, while your employer risk losing...an employee? Out of a whole lot. And most probably someone not even remotely related to the boss. Get the picture? Read more...
[/caption]
I came across this sobering story ("Part-timers run equal risk but no medical benefits", 30/05/2009, Pg. A41) in the Straits Times Forum which set me thinking. This letter was written by a parent in response to his/her son's predicament when he was injured at work. Essentially, being a "part-time" worker, the son had to face a double jeopardy because:
1) He had to pay for ALL the expenses incurred (such as the taxi-fare to the hospital, the medical fees and the follow-up treatment) as the employer did not provide any medical benefits for 'part-timers'.
2) Although he was granted 10 days MC, that translates to a loss of 10 days worth of income as he is paid according to the hours he worked.
The central question that this incident raises is who should be the one that bears the burden of providing medical benefits? Is it the individual employee, or the employer? In fact, my opinion is that the party who faces the risk of greater loss should be the one who bears the burden. Put simply - you might risk losing your life and limb, while your employer risk losing...an employee? Out of a whole lot. And most probably someone not even remotely related to the boss. Get the picture? Read more...
