Leanda Lee
Our heroes: during my childhood we called them dustmen. They were fit and strong, and ran beside the trucks flinging lids off metal dust-bins heaving the contents over shoulders into trucks. We would leave them something each Christmas, mostly a crate of beer, for theirs was a dirty, smelly job; one that we really appreciated. Now along the same streets are one-man trucks that do the heavy lifting of 80-litre bins. The rubbish man stays in the comfort of an air-conditioned cab. But this is first-world hygiene and we might call them sanitation or resource recovery officers: Is this euphemism, status inflation or a symbol of a change in our values?
There are many who go out in all seasons cleaning up after us. They are sometimes admired for their hard labour, oft-times disregarded. The Huffington Post published a quaint story the other day about a two-year old who finally got to meet his idols. Each week on collection day they would wave to him from a distance. Then, one day, after successful potty training, he’d been (appropriately) rewarded with a toy garbage truck, and was overwhelmed with joy when he got to show off his new toy to his gallant heroes and see them and the big truck up close.
Closer to home, a friend told me she gives a HKD2,000 red packet at Chinese New Year to the man that collects her rubbish. That’s an impressive sum and goes to show the level of gratitude.
Much of what is written in the developed world on waste removal is about the environmental impact of rubbish but the underlying, more important and often forgotten aspect in affluent societies is sanitation and hygiene, the first step in disease prevention and health management. Without services of cleaners, recyclers and waste removal providers our streets and corridors would be choked with debris and filth. Although, these menial, low-skilled jobs are generally low paid and undervalued, they are essential.
I find it fitting that if Macau’s minimum wage bill is to be tested with any group of unskilled worker prior to universal roll-out that it be with our cleaners. The rationale given for focusing the legislation on cleaners and security guards employed by property managers is that they constitute almost 50% of those receiving the government’s low-income subsidy. This raises least two concerns: the government is effectively subsidizing the firms which is unfair to taxpayers (though a potential boon to the direct users, if the companies happen to pass on the benefits). Secondly, as per one argument for minimum wages, if wages fall at or below social security levels, there is little incentive to work. As we need our cleaners, that would be problematic. Fong Chi Keong, a government appointed AL member, is either keen to see the continuation of the effective corporate subsidies (in the vicinity of MOP5 million per quarter to this sector) or does not regard highly our hygiene workers: during last July’s debate over the first reading of the bill, he implied that there are some “types of people” in our society who don’t need to be treated equally. Two other reasons for the minimum wage, a) reducing pay inequalities and b) promoting equitable treatment of the working poor, don’t appear to be priorities for this AL member either.
Given the specifics of the Macau trial, reasons generally mooted against the minimum wage are effectively negated. 1. It encourages outsourcing to low-wage countries – these jobs are localised and our immigration policies will preclude this. 2. If it is set too high it discourages upskilling – MOP30 is still effectively less than the existing government safety net assuming a 36-hour week. 3. It may lead to automation, increasing unemployment – at Macau’s 1.7% unemployment rate, this is not a substantial concern. 4. It makes unskilled workers too expensive, increasing unemployment – we might see some minor adjustment in staffing but offset by higher productivity and capital investment due to the essential nature of the service. Rubbish is a good place to start with the Minimum Wage. Apart from a cautious, positive step forward, it says something good about values.
No Comments