Accidents Involving Food and Goods Delivery Platform Workers and Compensation and Support Provided

6 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since January 2021, how many food and goods delivery platform workers have died from accidents in the course of their work; (b) whether the Ministry will mandate delivery platforms to report non-fatal job-related injuries and near-misses involving platform workers; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider tracking the compensation and support provided to families of delivery platform workers who have died or suffered serious injuries during work.

7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider requiring delivery platform firms to provide baseline compensation commensurate with the Work Injury Compensation Act, especially when a delivery worker has been seriously injured or died on the job.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together, please?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Since January 2021, there have been five fatal work-related traffic accidents involving food and goods delivery platform workers. The Workplace Safety and Health Council is working with platform companies to review work processes to enhance the safety of platform workers on the road to prevent accidents. More details will be shared when ready.

In parallel, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers is looking at strengthening financial protection in case of work injury for delivery persons, private hire car drivers and taxi drivers. The Advisory Committee has been engaging platform companies and platform workers on the provision of financial protection to platform workers who are injured at work. Such protection is provided currently to employees under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The implementation of such a work injury financial protection framework would require the mandatory reporting of work injuries to ensure platform workers receive the necessary compensation.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have a number of Clementi residents who work as delivery riders. They and their families, as well as some of their customers, are troubled every time a delivery rider dies on the job.

I have filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and I hope Mdm Deputy Speaker will allow me three supplementary questions.

First, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) policy intent is to cover persons on flexible working arrangements and, if so, why not cover flexible workers in the gig economy?

Second, does the Senior Minister of State agree that there is policy space to improve protection for these delivery riders, to close what may be a perceived policy lacuna, to ensure a fairer outcome when a delivery rider dies on the job, working for a gig platform?

Thirdly, does the Senior Minister of State also agree that this policy improvement has broader implications for workplace safety in Singapore? For example, what happens if, tomorrow, a marine, manufacturing or construction company decides to gazette their Singaporean workers as self-employed or independent contractors? They would need protections, too.

In summary, Mdm Deputy Speaker, as one resident said, "No company should ever be allowed to send the message that when a worker dies, it is 'you die, your problem'." Because if a worker dies on the job, it is everyone's problem.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his three clarifications. Indeed, the issues he raised are also issues that the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers has been deliberating on.

Certainly, every death at work is one death too many. We have been working very closely with employers, including platform companies, to make sure that some of these safety measures at work are looked into. As I have said in my main reply, the Workplace Safety and Health Workgroup is looking at this and will announce more measures when ready.

The Member's first question on why is it that WICA is applicable for flexible work arrangements but not for workers who are working flexibly as gig workers. The underlying reason is because gig workers, by definition, are self-employed persons and self-employed persons are not covered under the Employment Act.

Having said that, the Advisory Committee, having consulted widely, is looking at this issue from the perspective that self-employed workers in the gig economy may be subject to management controls by the algorithms in the platforms, in which case, they are somewhat a little bit more employee-like. And, therefore, we are looking closely to see whether WICA can be applied also to gig workers, to provide them a lot more financial protection when they are injured in terms of their work.

The Advisory Committee is also taking a look at the principle of a gig worker, if he is injured at work providing services to people, but what if the nature of work is similar to another worker doing delivery work as an employee. In that sense, in principle, there should be no differentiation whether the person's life is worth more or less, just because he is being engaged in a different form of employment.

By providing some form of equal principle in terms of protection using WICA, we hope to actually cover some of the vulnerabilities of this segment of workers, to make sure that if they are injured or suffered a death in the course of their work, some financial compensation that is commensurate with the kind of work they do, will be provided for them as well.

The Member's third question on what happens if companies were to reclassify employees as gig workers and therefore, attempting to circumvent some of the benefits or rights that employees enjoy. I think, in this case, there is no single test that is able to be used to check whether a worker has been reclassified. What is important is to look at the nature of the engagement between the company and the worker. For example, if the company, by the nature of the work that this person is doing, has to provide a workplace, has to provide equipment, has to provide the kind of jobs to be given to this worker and there is an expectation for the worker to perform – certain KPIs, for example – in that case, that relationship is more akin to an employer-employee relationship. The company would then be expected to provide employee benefits to this worker under the Employment Act.

It does not matter whether this person is a full-timer or a part-timer or whether, in the contract, the company claims that this person is self-employed. So, in adjudicating such disputes, we will look at the nature of the engagement and the relationship between the worker and the company, to make a judgement.

Workers who take on any employment with any company should look closely at the terms of contractual agreement they sign with the company before they actually engage with that company. If they are not clear in their terms of employment, they can seek clarification with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) to make sure that they understand the terms of the employment and what they are signing up for.

This is the approach that MOM will take. There is no one-size-fits-all test to be sure whether the engagement is a contract for service or a contract of service. We look at the relationship of the engagement.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a quick question. When the Senior Minister of State announced the formation of the Advisory Committee last September to look at savings of gig workers and the injury framework, the Senior Minister of State, I believe, also announced that the report of the committee would be ready in the second half of this year. Is the committee on track to release its report shortly?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, the committee is still proceeding with its work and we do hope to finish the work towards the end of the year. Like I said, the work is a complex one because it involves discussing with many different stakeholders.

The workspace for platform workers is a very diverse one. There are different types of archetypes and profiles of people who are engaged in platform work. Platform companies also serve a diverse segment of consumers. So, I hope Members will give us the space and the time to continue to engage widely and discuss with the stakeholders.