落雨收柴但求找數 禍胎方案不提也罷

<轉載自2017年6月14日 明報 社評>

現屆政府告別在即，行政長官梁振英為了履行競選承諾，就勞工權益問題「找數」，拋出「合約工時」方案，然而建議內容偏離初衷，令長工時剝削「合理化」，對日後爭取標準工時立法隨時弊多於利，勞工界直斥是夕陽政府「落雨收柴」之作，並不為過。政府但求趕交「功課」，拋出爛方案，只會留下禍胎，根本不提也罷。除了「合約工時」，未來兩周政府打算怎樣處理取消強積金對冲機制，是勞工界另一關注焦點，如果政府無法回應勞方合理訴求，倒不如藏拙，交由下屆政府跟進，切勿「為找數而找數」。

取消強積金對冲方案 勞方憂損打工仔利益

梁振英競選時承諾處理兩大棘手勞工問題，一是標準工時，一是取消強積金對冲機制。折騰5年，政府到頭來竟然搬出一個後患無窮的合約工時方案。勞工界一直希望政府能夠立法設定標準工時，保障打工仔免受資方剝削，工作時間愈來愈長卻得不到合理補償。現在的合約工時方案，表面上雖然規定僱主需對低薪基層僱員提供超時補水，惟工時長短卻由僱主話事，一旦落實執行，大有可能令到超長工時合法化兼合理化，對打工仔有害無益。由於勞方不滿以合約工時取代標時立法，杯葛標準工時委員會，資方實際主導了整個合約工時方案的制定，政府明知勞方不會接受，卻仍然照單全收，難免令勞工界擔心現屆政府為求卸任前「找數」，在取消強積金對冲機制方面，又要打工仔「硬啃」一個有欠公道的方案。

強積金制度2000年實施，當年政府為爭取商界支持，同意設立對冲機制，容許僱主在發放遣散費或長期服務金時，可從僱員強積金戶口的僱主供款部分，提取相同款額以作抵消，變相蠶食員工應得的退休保障，備受勞工界詬病。今年初梁振英發表《施政報告》，提出為強積金對冲定下「死線」，死線日之後的僱主強積金供款，不能再用來對冲。為了爭取商界接受，政府願意成立基金，在落實取消對冲安排的10年過渡期內，向僱主提供資助，同時還提出降低遣散費及長服金（下稱「兩金」）的計算比例，由相當於僱員最後一個月工資的三分之二，降至二分之一。政府希望趕及在本月敲定方案，惟與勞資雙方討論數月，迄今未有共識。商界代表仍然要求保留對冲機制，勞方則不滿調低「兩金」計算比例，認為有關做法損害打工仔權益。

雖然商界人士不斷堅稱，取消對冲機制將加重僱主負擔，同時有違政府當年承諾，然而強積金是為僱員長遠退休生活打算，並非失業保障，與遣散費和長服金性質截然不同，根本沒有理由拿來做對冲。如此不公道的制度居然能夠存在10多年，已是極為荒謬，無論是現屆政府還是下屆政府都應當以取消對冲機制為己任，商界不應心存僥倖，以為可以維持現狀。

合約工時方案問題多 勉強推動礙標時立法

現屆政府推動取消對冲，本應是維護勞工權益的重要一步，不過政府要求勞方接受降低「兩金」計算比例，作為整個方案的主要條件之一，邏輯其實一樣是將強積金與「兩金」掛鈎，與取消對冲機制將兩者切割處理的大原則背道而馳。有官員認為，倘若勞方堅持己見，對冲安排維持下去，到頭來得益的是商界，吃虧的是打工仔。政府希望勞方接納權宜之計，可是對冲機制的出現，本身就是當年政府但求設立強積金而向商界妥協的權宜惡果。勞方反對降低「兩金」計算比例，換取取消對冲，實乃原則問題。

過去數月，勞顧會曾商討是否還有其他可行的取消對冲安排，其中之一是基金池方案，由資方及政府每月額外供款（例如相當於僱員薪酬1%），成立基金池用來支付「兩金」，惟要為申索封頂，免被濫用。勞方認為有關做法毋須改變「兩金」計算比例，對此抱開放態度，部分商界人士亦認為這不失是一個可以考慮的方法，惟技術問題有待磋商。雖然政府對基金池方案潑冷水，認為有關方案令僱主開支更大，不過現屆政府不應因為卸任在即，但求落雨收柴交功課，硬推政府方案，將進一步研究基金池方案的大門緊緊關上。

無論是取消強積金對冲還是規管工時，政府最大目標應是保障勞工權益，切忌出於權宜考慮或急就章，勉強拋出有問題的方案。當年政府為了落實強積金計劃，弄出不倫不類的對冲機制，10多年來未能推翻，正是一大教訓。政府最新提出的合約工時方案問題多多，強行落實禍患無窮，不排除商界日後會以合約工時「行之有效」云云，堅拒標準工時立法，令到打工仔更難討回公道。設若政府的取消對冲安排，又是一個未能好好保障勞工權益的方案，其實不提也罷；留給下屆政府跟進研究，總比留下禍胎為佳。

Government efforts to fulfil election promises do more harm than good

THE CURRENT TERM of government is to expire shortly. To fulfil one of his election promises, Leung Chun-ying, the Chief Executive, has proposed a "contractual working hours" plan as his way of settling the matter of labour rights. But the proposed plan, a departure from what was originally intended, will only legitimise the exploitation of people working long hours and could present more obstacles than opportunities to the fight for standard working hours legislation. Representatives of employees have lambasted the plan as a piece of haphazard work by an outgoing government. This is a fair comment. A plan of such poor quality proposed by a government trying to "meet a deadline" will only sow the seeds of future problems, and it is not worth mentioning at all. Apart from the "contractual working hours" issue, the labour sector's attention is on how the government will handle another issue within the next two weeks: the abolishment of the offsetting mechanism of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). If the government once again finds it impossible to address employees' legitimate demand, it should leave the matter to the next administration instead of trying to fulfil election promises just for the sake of it and thus exhibiting its weakness.

During his campaign, Leung promised to tackle two thorny labour issues, namely standard working hours and the abolishment of the MPF offsetting mechanism. After five years' bickering, the government has come up with a contractual working hours plan that will do endless harm for years to come. The labour sector had been hoping that the government would initiate legislation on standard working hours to protect employees from exploitation by employers and remedy the situation in which they had to work longer and longer hours without receiving reasonable compensation. On the face of it, the contractual working hours plan will require employers to give overtime payments to low-income employees of low social status. However, since the number of working hours will be decided solely by employers, the plan, if implemented, will in all probability legalise and legitimise excessively long working hours, which will only harm employees' interests.

As for the MPF system, when it was implemented in 2000, the government agreed to the establishment of the offsetting mechanism to gain the support of the business sector. Under the mechanism, an employer is allowed to delve into the "employer's contribution" part of an employee's MPF account for the same amount of money when he or she has to give the employee a severance or long service payment. The arrangement, which allows employers to eat into employees' well-deserved retirement protection, has long been criticised by the labour sector. Early this year, Leung published the Policy Address and proposed setting a deadline for the offsetting mechanism. Any contribution made by the employer after the deadline could no longer be used for offsetting purposes. To woo the business sector, the government agreed to set up a fund in order to provide assistance for employers within the ten years during which the offsetting mechanism would be abolished. The government also suggested altering the calculation method so as to lower the amount of severance and long service payments payable by an employer from two thirds of the employee's last monthly salary to 50 per cent of it. The government wants the plan to be finalised within this month. However, a consensus has yet to be reached after months of discussion between employers and employees. Representatives of the business sector still insist that the offsetting mechanism should be maintained, while the labour sector is against lowering the amount of severance and long service payments, arguing that such a move will harm employees' interests.

The contractual working hours plan proposed by the government is fraught with problems. If it is implemented heavy-handedly, we cannot rule out the possibility that the business sector will remain adamantly opposed to legislation on standard working hours on the pretext that the contractual working hours arrangement "has been effective in its practice". This will make it even more difficult for working people to fight for what they deserve. If the government's plan for abolishing the offsetting mechanism fails to protect labour rights again, it had better not to unveil it. It is better to leave the matter to the next administration than to leave behind another legacy of such pernicious effects.

落雨收柴但求找數 禍胎方案不提也罷

現屆政府告別在即，行政長官梁振英為了履行競選承諾，就勞工權益問題「找數」，拋出「合約工時」方案，然而建議內容偏離初衷，令長工時剝削「合理化」，對日後爭取標準工時立法隨時弊多於利，勞工界直斥是夕陽政府「落雨收柴」之作，並不為過。政府但求趕交「功課」，拋出爛方案，只會留下禍胎，根本不提也罷。除了「合約工時」，未來兩周政府打算怎樣處理取消強積金對冲機制，是勞工界另一關注焦點，如果政府無法回應勞方合理訴求，倒不如藏拙，交由下屆政府跟進，切勿「為找數而找數」。

梁振英競選時承諾處理兩大棘手勞工問題，一是標準工時，一是取消強積金對冲機制。折騰5年，政府到頭來竟然搬出一個後患無窮的合約工時方案。勞工界一直希望政府能夠立法設定標準工時，保障打工仔免受資方剝削，工作時間愈來愈長卻得不到合理補償。現在的合約工時方案，表面上雖然規定僱主需對低薪基層僱員提供超時補水，惟工時長短卻由僱主話事，一旦落實執行，大有可能令到超長工時合法化兼合理化，對打工仔有害無益。

強積金制度2000年實施，當年政府為爭取商界支持，同意設立對冲機制，容許僱主在發放遣散費或長期服務金時，可從僱員強積金戶口的僱主供款部分，提取相同款額以作抵消，變相蠶食員工應得的退休保障，備受勞工界詬病。今年初梁振英發表《施政報告》，提出為強積金對冲定下「死線」，死線日之後的僱主強積金供款，不能再用來對冲。為了爭取商界接受，政府願意成立基金，在落實取消對冲安排的10年過渡期內，向僱主提供資助，同時還提出降低遣散費及長服金（下稱「兩金」）的計算比例，由相當於僱員最後一個月工資的三分之二，降至二分之一。政府希望趕及在本月敲定方案，惟與勞資雙方討論數月，迄今未有共識。商界代表仍然要求保留對冲機制，勞方則不滿調低「兩金」計算比例，認為有關做法損害打工仔權益。

政府最新提出的合約工時方案問題多多，強行落實禍患無窮，不排除商界日後會以合約工時「行之有效」云云，堅拒標準工時立法，令到打工仔更難討回公道。設若政府的取消對冲安排，又是一個未能好好保障勞工權益的方案，其實不提也罷；留給下屆政府跟進研究，總比留下禍胎為佳。