Cleaners, security guards | Overtime compensation only obstacle for minimum wage bill

According to the Legislative Assembly’s 2nd Standing Committee, the method for calculating overtime compensation is the only obstacle to the passing of a bill that seeks to raise the minimum wage for local cleaners and security guards hired by property management service suppliers or those working in residential buildings to MOP32 per hour.

The acknowledgment was made yesterday by the committee president, Chan Chak Mo, following a meeting with the committee and the labor sector discussing the details of the bill before it is sent to the plenary for final approval.

According to Chan, the “bill is quite simple actually. What the government proposes is just to change the amount [of payment per hour] to MOP32,” he said.

Chan noted that during yesterday’s meeting, the only obstacle came from the employee representatives’ side, who “wanted to propose a different form of calculating the overtime work.”

In the discussion that followed, the idea of “using the same amount [MOP32] to calculate the overtime work” was rejected by both the employers and the juridical advisory of the AL.

According to the committee president, “this would imply adding a new article to the law that has been already approved [in its first reading] at the AL. This would send the law all the way back to the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs.”

Chan said that the AL juridical advisors were suggesting that “they should wait to propose such a change until the discussion of the implementation of a universal minimum wage, so it does not conflict with the enforcement of general labor law, possibly creating some unfairness in the treatment of employees from different professions.”

Either way, Chan said, “we need to consult the government on this matter to ascertain their legislative intention.”

Addressing transition period, proposed to be 180 days (six months) after the law is finally approved and before it is enforced, the president of the committee noted that this has “to do with the need for adaptations from condominium management companies, as the raise can interfere with condominium management fees” to be charged to the property owners.