There are some MNCs that implement such practice but it is not prevalent.

One of the company that I audit has this 40 hours cap, where you are only required to work 40 hours per week, and if you work 10 hours the night before, then you can come in later or leave earlier the next day, but need to clock at least 40 hours per week, otherwise your salary will be deducted. They are allowed to leave at earliest 4.15pm, some comes in at 6am so that they can leave earlier.

Another Jap company starts at 8.30am sharp, break for lunch at 11.15 for an hour and clock out at 5pm to avoid the rush hours.

I think it is only fair for them to deduct if you CAN leave at 5.30/6.00 pm sharp and compensated for OT.

---

Added on December 5, 2009, 7:27 amThere are some MNCs that implement such practice but it is not prevalent.

One of the company that I audit has this 40 hours cap, where you are only required to work 40 hours per week, and if you work 10 hours the night before, then you can come in later or leave earlier the next day, but need to clock at least 40 hours per week, otherwise your salary will be deducted. They are allowed to leave at earliest 4.15pm, some comes in at 6am so that they can leave earlier.

Another Jap company starts at 8.30am sharp, break for lunch at 11.15 for an hour and clock out at 5pm to avoid the rush hours.

I think it is only fair for them to deduct if you CAN leave at 5.30/6.00 pm sharp and compensated for OT.

This post has been edited by chess_gal: Dec 5 2009, 07:27 AM

somebody jz need to understand...an employment is a mutual relation
employer pay to acquire service from employee...
employee deliver service to get paid...
do good for each other, then things work out good....
make it look bad then...all hell went loose...

1 thing employee need to ask themselves, did i did something wrong to get deducted? did i work really enough for the employer..or i'm taking advantage on them?

employer has their own question too....is squeezing employee every bit really beneficial for me? should the employment relationship should limited to $$ only?

employment act is there to protect the employee, in another view, is to provide a guideline to employer as well, the minimal you should do, to ensure an employment not going into haywire...
e.g. i believe some employer did encountered sabotage, did you ever question back, what u did that pushed tat employee to that extent? can it be actually been avoided if both of you did worked right for mutual benefit?

our labour law isn't jz protect <1.5k group, it isn't jz 1 line...but law is still law...if u choose not to obey it, law is not exists...

at the end, if it is an unhappy relationship, its ur choice, to mend, or to break

That's not a fair judgment. Some posts back, someone mentioned most of us are averaged Joe/Jane here, and average Joe/Jane isn't likely to work in Google. An average company will have to hire a lot of average people, and since Malaysians are LARGELY not very productive, there's bound to be such rules abound to well.. basically get actual work done.


Plus, the existence of companies is to make profit, which goes on to, including others, paying the salaries and bonuses of employees.
Btw, I'm no expert in legality issues, but I take the stance that the company do have the prerogative rights to discipline tardy employees, especially if the tardiness has the potential to cause serious workplace disruption. Now whether tardiness is defined as 1 minute late, or MIA for half the day is highly subjective according to company rules and regulations as well as the employee responsibilities.

Just like how the Syariah Law is limited to Muslims only, the Employment Act is limited to employees in the First Schedule only. And that means in <1500 unless it's one of the listed exceptions.

Every law and statute has a scope of application or ambit. Laws are explicit in application. If it applies, it applies. If it does not, it does not. No such thing as "law is still law".

That's just sad. For those who earn 2k and above - if the employer wronged us, it's hard to take action since we're not being covered.

When it comes to pay deduction, it's a sensitive issue. Our company's factory side implemented an incentive. As long as in 1 month - the staffs did not clock in late (not even 1 minute late) they'll receive additional RM100.00. If a worker was late once, RM30.00 will be cut off from the incentive. So when this worker is late for 3 times, there goes the incentive.

my point actually is quite simple, there must be a mutual trust between the employer and employees. It's hard to be bound by a very specific rules and regulations. I believe if you treat an employees good and fairly, the employers is the one who gain in the end.

QF frickin' T

Work Ethics.

Simply put it like this when a person is in another persons home ( be it a neighbour/club house or even in another country), as a visitor one is expected to abide by the rules/laws/customs/practices of the host persons home.

Comparison between Asian and Western working culture, there's no point comparing cultures or work ethics... regardless how many adv or disadv one can point out in this thread. THE FACT is nothing will change any time soon!

THE fact:
1. We work because we need money
2. we need money to achieve a better lifestyle
3. We sign an employment contract means we promise and agreed to the terms of the company. (no gun or amount of torture necessary becayse the desire to achieve a better lifestyle drives us to look for work)
4. We quit a job because we don't like the job or one has manage to find a job that offers a better lifestyle (again this is done voluntarily)

Relating back to companies, each company have their in-house rules pertaining to do's and don'ts. The rules are there for a reason(s). If one is simply unhappy about it, one can choose to resign from the company.

This is the unfortunate fate of being an employee.

The Law vs Employer

The law is there to protect Employees from unscrupulous Employers taking advantage of the employees i.e. termination without notice, sacking without cause or whatever the reason may be.

However we keep forgetting Employees are also none the better?

Example 1:
a clerk in my dept tendered 24 hrs left during lunch didn't even have the guts to inform us that she left. The loop hole she relied on (apparently she knows more about the law)? She didn't sign the Appointment letter, as such she is entitled to leave by giving 24 hrs notice.

Agreed.

I find there are more ppl abusing the law to their advantage compared to using it against unscrupulous employers.

Scrutinizing every inch of their employment contract in order to bail out (example) 5 days into their employment without being reprimanded.

Just look at threads on the forum pertaining to resignations.

this is the wrong perception rexis, the labour dept actually is pro-employee compared to employer. If the complainant comes with clean hands, if the complaint is genuine, i dont see why not a case should not be brought against an employer.

No offence. People who normally say this are usually because they are ignorant.

Agreed.

Agreed

Yes, ur ranting too much. Must be a culture shock to u.

Refer to Work ethics.

Good for you. ur ranting too much.

Refer to work ethics.

This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
somebody jz need to understand...an employment is a mutual relation

employment act is there to protect the employee, in another view, is to provide a guideline to employer as well, the minimal you should do, to ensure an employment not going into haywire...
e.g. i believe some employer did encountered sabotage, did you ever question back, what u did that pushed tat employee to that extent? can it be actually been avoided if both of you did worked right for mutual benefit?

our labour law isn't jz protect <1.5k group, it isn't jz 1 line...but law is still law...if u choose not to obey it, law is not exists...

The employment law does only protect ppl who earn <1.5K,this is a fact. To protect unskilled labourers (possibly whom have very little education or none) for being exploited by their employers.

Ppl who earn >1.5K, whom are suppose to be "educated"/skilled/white collar are suppose to negotiate or at least know how to read their contract or have the knowledge to their the difference between what is good bad right and wrong seems to be the ppl who need more protection?

You seem to contradict yourself.

And YES the law only protects ppl who earn <1.5K, if u earn >1.5K take it up with the labour dept/courts.

This post has been edited by aurora97: Dec 5 2009, 07:21 PM

they can only deduct if you are absent without leave

QFTed. I also go on weekends on my own time; company makes it so easy and comfortable- coffee/drinks dispenser works, light and aircond. No sirens or 30 mins lunch time rules. Old chinaman C i used to work with? I leave the gates of the building... my mind throws everything away and goes DotA mode.

so funny la all d comments here.

yes, deduction can be made cos u dint work those hours.

if i late 5 mins can deduct salary?
30 mins? 8 hours? 3 days?

i been in mnc using SAP, i clock in late 5 mins also deduct gaji.

of course u can always bring this to labor dept and make a hoohah, its ur hak asasi pekerja utk buat aduan.

Yes the comments here are indeed strange...

Basically, there are mis-perceptions:

1. Whether the employment act is applicable or not?
if applicable, the company cannot deduct salary for being late

2. Some ppl argue on the point Asian (CINAMAN) Vs Western (MNC) company.
Totally irrelevant and highly debatable.

3. Everyone needs to understand, an employment is a mutual relationship i.e. a willing employee and a willing employer who wants to employ the employee.

4. As such when the employee pens his name down on the employment letter, he/she has agreed to the terms/guidelines/rules/customs and practices among other things.

5. IF an Employee Disagrees with such rules he/she can resign from the job voluntarily at any time.

You make some good points. And maybe it is all culture shock to me. But some of the points you make are clearly why there is a big problem, in my view in Malaysian workplace today.

Yes there are abuses of the system by employees. Of course there should be a mutual understanding and work ethics in place so employer and employee can collaborate well and achieve desired results.

In theory what you say sounds very nice. But in reality, let's face some other facts which some people have encountered.


1.
If there is no law for those earning > 1.5K then what are the guidelines in place? What are minimum hours? If it is based on the contract, then most contract states "you may be required to work for extra hours etc. etc.". If there is a dispute on contract wording, etc, who is going to resolve, the courts? Employment law for everybody is important because it sets basic guidelines for employers and employees, improves productivity by reducing the need for dispute and litigation. In some cases it is to protect the health of people because in countries (like Malaysia) where the government has free or subsidised healthcare overworked workers can encounter many health issues which the government has to bear the expense, while the employer doesn't have to bear the expense for unhealthy workers.


2.
"People just work for money". I think while this perception dominates Malaysia will never progress beyond "the developing country that's better than Africa and places like Vietnam but behind US, UK, Australia, Europe, Singapore, maybe even some cities in China, India, South America..." ... If you all truly feel Malaysian, 1Malaysia, or whatever, you will realise the goal of people is to improve their lives and their communities. Money is of course the basic unit of survival, but in many other countries art, good government, research, all contribute greatly to improving a country. Do you think Malaysia will ever create a Google, Twitter, CNN? Do you think there will ever be a pure Buatan Malaysia electric car that wasn't developed because of billions of overspending by the government? What sort of world-class universities do we have? Where it isn't just students from Africa and the Middle East that come here?

People need to have a more holistic view of wealth and economy. In the longer term view, GDP growth and the status, attractiveness of a nation goes beyond just wages. Yes, overseas most people work just to get income. But there is a system in place for great achievements in science, research, technology, manufacturing, agriculture. You say, work is just for money. But for the employers as well, what about pride in what their company does? Corporate social responsibility?

All these advance a nation, and guess what, makes everybody richer as a whole. Working for more than money can eventually lead you to have more money as a country and a higher standard of living.

Again, I'm not saying, eg., US and Europe is perfect. But how did they achieve, and maintain, and despite the debt market meltdown, still have such a higher standard of living? Why are talented Malaysians continually leaving the country and not coming back? Not just money. Malaysia has good weather, good food, people have family here, golf courses, decent shopping, many nature activities. People are not leaving just because they can get x amount more overseas, starting a new life with no friends and family in a cold foreign country is no joke.


3.
"Relating back to companies, each company have their in-house rules pertaining to do's and don'ts. The rules are there for a reason(s). If one is simply unhappy about it, one can choose to resign from the company." ... "this is the wrong perception rexis, the labour dept actually is pro-employee compared to employer. If the complainant comes with clean hands, if the complaint is genuine, i dont see why not a case should not be brought against an employer."

Again, you talk about an ideal situation. But from my experience and the experience of many others I am sure, there exists such a power gap between you and your boss (because they have access to funds, they have a higher social status, they may be Datuk this-or-that and have government connections). This power gap results in reality, to a situation whereby having a rational, mutually respectful discussion between employee and employer is not really possible. As a new employee, or as someone being offered a job, you try discussing your appointment letter, conditions of work, then going to the Labour department (which doesn't cover you anyway if you are more than 1.5K, right?) and your boss will probably think you are trying to be funny and "punish" you in underhanded ways.

Or, you will be asked to find a new job. Which then is a loss for the employer because they have to pour (waste) even more resources of finding people that are all just looking to survive, collect their salary, and then leave after several months or just over a year.


4.
Many economists say growth and improvement in the wealth of people in a country comes from productivity. Yes, what you spell out as work ethics is the basic principles of employment. But while thismusical chairs game between employees and employers continues, there are enormous losses in productivity which limit everybody from making more money.


5.
This time I am confident I am not ranting. For those that just want to survive, just get their paycheck, just follow their daily life, if you are happy, that is your right. But, if, as a Malaysian citizen, like me, you believe in this country and community, there needs to be a new standard, a new level, a new attitude for better collaboration between employers and employees. Of course the people that just cabut and are lazy should be filtered out. The problem is that talented, dedicated people (I have seen this personally) get victimised or burnt out as well because employers have "given up" and treat every worker the same as just "an ordinary worker, whatever".

---

Added on December 6, 2009, 11:33 am

And how many cases are there where the employer also reasonably adheres to the terms/ guidelines/ rules/ customs/ practices in a fair manner? Many people here and those you know can cite instances where what you would consider "good employees", do not receive the appropriate reciprocal fair treatment from the employer.

---

Added on December 6, 2009, 11:45 amMore money may mean a "better lifestyle" but does not necessarily mean a better life.

People changing jobs for RM 200 more a month is very common in Malaysia, as I understand and have observed. WTF? What better lifestyle or life do you get if this means you're always changing jobs here and there to try and get something better? And for RM 200 extra you travel an extra 1 hour each way by bus or in terrible traffic jam that makes you even more stressed out?

I would think improvement in skills, job satisfaction, distance to work, ease of access to public transport or road systems to get to work would also matter besides money.

Of course if you're talking between 1.5K and 2.5K or 2.5K and 4K this can have a big impact on your personal wealth. But the frequent changing of jobs and unhappiness because of a few hundred RM here or there is what I find, strange.

And the concept of "better lifestyle" -- means what, a BMW instead of a Kelisa? A house instead of a condo? Getting the latest Tissot watch or LV bag? Getting to show this off to your colleagues and friends? Jamming up the roads even more and the increased air pollution in our cities? More stress chasing down parking spots at ever more crowded car parks? Then having only the weekends to cram in all your activities at super-crowded malls? Not having enough time for your parents, your child, leaving the maids to teach them the important things in life? Stabbing co-workers and friends in the back to get ahead for this "better lifestyle"?

This post has been edited by nvidia2006: Dec 6 2009, 11:55 AM

It's not an "if". It's the current status.

The relationship between an employer and employee is firstly contractual. Only if the employee is covered by the Employment Act, the provisions of the act override the contractual stipulations. If the employee is covered by a collective or union agreement, then the Industrial Relations Act comes into play.

Otherwise, it's contractual only (within the bounds of criminal, immigration, taxation, EPF laws etc). That's why people should read what they sign, and don't sign if they don't agree. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore have chosen not to provide safeguards for stupidity or ignorance.

I think nobody is arguing that a universal employment law (like in Germany) is not 'important'. You're preaching to the converted.

The discussion is whether it applies or not.

This post has been edited by seantang: Dec 6 2009, 12:21 PM

"Can a company deduct salary for being late?"

Solutions to the question above.

Issue 1
TS earn <1.5K ---> Answer No ---> Protected by Employment Law

Next step:
Labour Department to file complaint.

Issue 2
TS earn >1.5K ---> Answer Yes ---> Subject to letter of appointment/ in-house rules/guidelines/policy/practice and customs.

Net step:
Come earlier to work next time or resign.

any HR person can issue a show cause for late attendance for sub1500K workers. in labor, late attendance is minor offence but comp can take action one, esp on prorate the salary (means potong gaji) based on the duration the worker did not work as stipulate in employment e.g 8.30-5..30.

u guys having way too much fun being offtopic liao.

actually when i saw this "I personally work till 12 am most of the time and sometimes till 2 am" i dont think u are a efficiency people too

no offences for u working late, but going back home in time is oso not a crime , but coming late .....my boss very good ^^