SMRT drivers' strike

• charlize

  4 Dec 12, 22:00

  http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2012/12/recent-strike-action-through-kid-eyes.html

   

  kena left right centre.

   

  damn funny.

• Seowlah

  4 Dec 12, 22:37

  Originally posted by charlize:

  http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2012/12/recent-strike-action-through-kid-eyes.html

   

  kena left right centre.

   

  damn funny.

  I have already posted it on 3rd December 2012 at 8.28 pm le 

  It is the same video. 

  Yes, it is really very funny.

  The two little brothers have been invited to LHL tea party a few months ago as he finds them funny too as these two little brothers have been making funny videos on current issues.

• Seowlah

  4 Dec 12, 22:42

  PRC drivers' responses to the meeting with the new SMRT CEO.

  Please refer to URL link http://news.omy.sg/News/Local-News/SMRT5Da-Cheng-Nuo-Zhong-Guo-Si-Ji-Zen-Yao-Shuo-114868 for the details.

  SMRT5大承诺　中国�机怎么说？

  以下是SMRT的5大承诺和�机的回应：

  ①有正确管�让�机���

  ��机：一些�机说，他们�新�，与SMRT签署了一份英文�约，他们并没看懂�约内容。此外，他们从5月开始��务线路主管�映�满，但未获得满�的答�，怀疑主管根本没上报。

  ②改善与员工的沟通

  ��机：希望新的沟通渠�也会有�样的结果，但现在还��以下定论。

  ③薪金�套是公平的

  ��机：等了6天���25元的加薪，实在太少，让他们很失望。�个月加�60多�时的情况也很罕�，多数�机�个月�能加�40多�时。改为6天制上�，加�较少�，新马�机通过加薪获得补�，但中国�机�没有。

  ④生活�件将改善

  ��机：兀兰宿�环境确有改善，煤气管已更�，�天有人打扫，还进行了3次除虫。但是，���次的�机还是�一起，宿�24�时有人进出，影�休�。公�有说，在宿��满2年的�机�以�出去�，但没说明是�会给这些�机275元的补助，刚�的�机也�无法�出去。

  ⑤�惜�机的�务和贡献

  ��机：�觉得公�真的�分国�，因为比较好的巴士线路，较多分给新马�机去开。

   

• troublemaker2005

  5 Dec 12, 03:42

  Originally posted by Seowlah:

  PRC drivers' responses to the meeting with the new SMRT CEO.

  Please refer to URL link http://news.omy.sg/News/Local-News/SMRT5Da-Cheng-Nuo-Zhong-Guo-Si-Ji-Zen-Yao-Shuo-114868 for the details.

  SMRT5大承诺　中国�机怎么说？

  以下是SMRT的5大承诺和�机的回应：

  ①有正确管�让�机���

  ��机：一些�机说，他们�新�，与SMRT签署了一份英文�约，他们并没看懂�约内容。此外，他们从5月开始��务线路主管�映�满，但未获得满�的答�，怀疑主管根本没上报。

  ②改善与员工的沟通

  ��机：希望新的沟通渠�也会有�样的结果，但现在还��以下定论。

  ③薪金�套是公平的

  ��机：等了6天���25元的加薪，实在太少，让他们很失望。�个月加�60多�时的情况也很罕�，多数�机�个月�能加�40多�时。改为6天制上�，加�较少�，新马�机通过加薪获得补�，但中国�机�没有。

  ④生活�件将改善

  ��机：兀兰宿�环境确有改善，煤气管已更�，�天有人打扫，还进行了3次除虫。但是，���次的�机还是�一起，宿�24�时有人进出，影�休�。公�有说，在宿��满2年的�机�以�出去�，但没说明是�会给这些�机275元的补助，刚�的�机也�无法�出去。

  ⑤�惜�机的�务和贡献

  ��机：�觉得公�真的�分国�，因为比较好的巴士线路，较多分给新马�机去开。

   

  bluff 1 lah. let them move out loh. you think SMRT going to pay them the extra 275 dollars? dorm already provided youwant take it and keep clean. don;t dirty and say we never clean. please lah hiring all these cheena still have to provide them dorm very troublesome. they also complaint this and that. hire malaysians and singaporeans lah.

• charlize

  5 Dec 12, 10:53

  Originally posted by Seowlah:

  I have already posted it on 3rd December 2012 at 8.28 pm le 

  It is the same video. 

  Yes, it is really very funny.

  The two little brothers have been invited to LHL tea party a few months ago as he finds them funny too as these two little brothers have been making funny videos on current issues.

   

• SJS6638

  5 Dec 12, 16:20

  SMRT strike – it’s about employees, not nationalities

  By Andrew Loh | SingaporeScene – 1 hour 58 minutes ago

  COMMENT

  The government's online feedback portal, REACH, reported that "over seven in 10Singaporeans surveyed felt that… SMRT's China bus drivers were wrong to have staged last week's illegal strike."

  Today newspaper reported the findings as such: "The majority of Singaporeans thought that the Chinese bus drivers involved in last week's strike should have taken up their grievances to SMRT through the proper channels…"

  The results of the survey were also reported by the broadsheet, The Straits Times.

  However, in what seems to be an entirely different result, a poll by news portal Channel NewsAsiaindicated that 64.2 per cent of those polled agreed with the SMRT drivers' strike action. Those who voted were responding to the poll question: "Should SMRT's bus drivers have resorted to the strike?"

  What should we make of these differences in public opinion?

  For one, the REACH survey — which involved those 15-years old and above — was conducted with 313 people. That's too small a size perhaps to have any representative significance for the wider population of 3.2 million Singaporeans. Also, some of the survey questions seem to be rather dubiously crafted, such as this one:

  "If the bus drivers from China are found to have breached Singapore's law, they should be punished to the full extent of the law, as Singapore has zero tolerance for illegal strikes?"

  This term - "zero tolerance for illegal strikes" — was first used by Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, in his reaction to the strike. Since then, it has also been used by the mainstream media here. While such opinions may be held by some, to include it in a survey question is highly questionable. It could be seen as a "leading question", one which nudges a respondent to a certain desired conclusion or answer — since we purportedly have "zero tolerance" for "illegal strikes", then of course perpetrators must be punished and be punished to the "full extent of the law."

  As for the Channel NewsAsia's poll, the details of the poll are unclear. We do not know how many had voted, or their backgrounds. So, while it is an interesting result, we should perhaps not take it too seriously either, unless the details of the poll are made known.

  What would in fact matter more and be a more meaningful exercise is for all of us to delve into the employment and labour rights issues. If we get stuck with arguing whether Singaporeans support the strike or not, we would have lost an opportunity to address the many underlying issues which the strike has raised — and there is none as important and significant than this one: the huge imbalance of power between the employee and the employer. And this has to do not just with foreign workers but with local workers as well.

  Our government, as can be seen from the reaction and remarks of various officials to the strike, is so enamoured and protective of businesses that none of its officers seemed to have spoken with any conviction on behalf of the workers, even as the MOM and the SMRT acknowledged the SMRT's failings and shortcomings. Minister Tan, for example, was moved to only say "SMRT should have done better as an employer."

  But more than just admitting failures, we should recognise that there is an urgent need to address the fundamental issues, and there are many, which pertain to the relationship between the worker/employee and the employer.

  As this SMRT incident has shown, workers are expected to "go through the proper channels" to have their grievances addressed. Failure to do so would evidently have serious consequences. For the employer, however, it could get away with nothing more than just a few words of admonishment even after it admits its failings.

  Who would take the SMRT to task, beyond just a slap on the wrist?

  While one does not condone illegal behaviour and actions, one should also not pretend that "proper channels" exist always, or that they are effective in addressing certain situations or problems. There are many instances and examples of foreign workers being left in the lurch, abused, exploited, even after they have gone through the "proper channels."

  And foreign workers continue to face these things. Poor living conditions, for example, which the SMRT drivers complained about, is not a new problem. It has been raised many times in the past, by activists, non-governmental organisations, and bloggers. So, really, it is not a question of going through the "proper channels" but a question of conviction, of respecting the basic rights of workers, and the willingness and capability of enforcing these conditions and rights.

  The swiftness with which 29 of the SMRT employees were called in, questioned, found guilty and summarily deported — all within a week — is something which we should be concerned about and indeed question. Were they given legal advice, or given access to legal representation? Should our laws be changed in order to provide such rights to workers?

  To continue to parrot the argument that the workers did not and should not have taken things into their own hands is to be blind to the reality these workers face. And to stick our heads in the sand, while trumpeting the righteousness of dealing with illegal action swiftly, is to ignore the bigger issue here of the power imbalance between the employee and her employer.

  The government's extreme pro-business attitude needs to be addressed and re-looked. It is perhaps the most important issue here, giving rise to the skewed labour landscape for employees, both local and foreign.

  For Singaporeans, they should realise that the issues arising from the strike last week is not about nationalities. They are instead about their own rights as employees, and whether they have adequate representation when it comes to addressing grievances of their own. In short, it is about us as employees, and not which land we come from.

• ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~

  5 Dec 12, 16:56

  Originally posted by Just_do_it_lah:

  Their plan.....

  Cheap labour....

  Pay 

  

  what do you get ?

  

  

  
  $10 XO cai tao kway might be not better then $1.50 cai tao kway~

   

  

• Tcsaaa

  5 Dec 12, 17:10

  anybody ever ask? y they dun pay themselve peanuts? y other must eat peanuts?

• SJS6638

  5 Dec 12, 17:12

  Originally posted by Tcsaaa:

  anybody ever ask? y they dun pay themselve peanuts? y other must eat peanuts?

  bcause they are more human than others.  ...       

  or you can say that they are more greedy than others ................          

• SBS6305H

  5 Dec 12, 19:01

  Activists slam Singapore crackdown on China strikers

  

  Activists expressed outrage Wednesday over Singapore's crackdown on Chinese bus drivers who staged the city-state's first industrial strike in 26 years to demand better pay and conditions.

  The two-day work stoppage last week at state-linked transport firm SMRT, declared illegal by the Singapore government, has resulted in the deportation of 29 drivers and a six-week jail term for one driver.

  Four other arrested drivers, who have been remanded for a week, are expected to be produced in court on Thursday, with each facing a maximum one-year jail term and a possible Sg$2,000 ($1,640) penalty if found guilty of involvement in the strike.

  The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, which represents 47 non-governmental organisations from 16 Asian countries, urged the release of the jailed and remanded drivers and demanded that charges against them be dropped.

  "We condemn the Singapore government's criminalisation of the exercise of fundamental rights by the bus drivers who went on strike," said the Bangkok-based group's executive director Yap Swee Seng.

  "The swift and harsh actions overlook the bases of their complaints about wage discrepancies and poor housing."

  The crackdown was also denounced by dozens of labour rights activists in Hong Kong who protested outside the Singapore consulate, with minor scuffles breaking out with security guards as they tried to enter the property.

  The protesters in the southern Chinese city called on Singapore to drop the charges against the strikers and free the jailed driver.

  Alex Au, treasurer of labour rights group Transient Workers Count Too (TCW 2) in Singapore, expressed dismay at the "heavy-handedness involved in prosecuting five workers and deporting 29 others".

  Au told AFP the government's "zero tolerance" for illegal strikes implies that it was "not prepared to recognise that the workers had legitimate grievances".

  SMRT has promised to look into the Chinese strikers' demands, fumigate their bedbug-infested dormitory rooms and find them better housing but the government has vowed to take "firm action" against any future illegal strikes.

  Last week's strike, the first in Singapore since 1986, has highlighted the country's heavy dependence on migrant labour to drive its economic growth amid a labour shortage resulting from falling birth rates.

  Strikes are illegal for workers in "essential services" such as transport unless they give 14 days' prior notice and meet other requirements.

  Source:  http://bit.ly/TBJCjM 

• SJS6638

  5 Dec 12, 19:05

  Originally posted by SBS6305H:

  Activists slam Singapore crackdown on China strikers

  

  Activists expressed outrage Wednesday over Singapore's crackdown on Chinese bus drivers who staged the city-state's first industrial strike in 26 years to demand better pay and conditions.

  The two-day work stoppage last week at state-linked transport firm SMRT, declared illegal by the Singapore government, has resulted in the deportation of 29 drivers and a six-week jail term for one driver.

  Four other arrested drivers, who have been remanded for a week, are expected to be produced in court on Thursday, with each facing a maximum one-year jail term and a possible Sg$2,000 ($1,640) penalty if found guilty of involvement in the strike.

  The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, which represents 47 non-governmental organisations from 16 Asian countries, urged the release of the jailed and remanded drivers and demanded that charges against them be dropped.

  "We condemn the Singapore government's criminalisation of the exercise of fundamental rights by the bus drivers who went on strike," said the Bangkok-based group's executive director Yap Swee Seng.

  "The swift and harsh actions overlook the bases of their complaints about wage discrepancies and poor housing."

  The crackdown was also denounced by dozens of labour rights activists in Hong Kong who protested outside the Singapore consulate, with minor scuffles breaking out with security guards as they tried to enter the property.

  The protesters in the southern Chinese city called on Singapore to drop the charges against the strikers and free the jailed driver.

  Alex Au, treasurer of labour rights group Transient Workers Count Too (TCW 2) in Singapore, expressed dismay at the "heavy-handedness involved in prosecuting five workers and deporting 29 others".

  Au told AFP the government's "zero tolerance" for illegal strikes implies that it was "not prepared to recognise that the workers had legitimate grievances".

  SMRT has promised to look into the Chinese strikers' demands, fumigate their bedbug-infested dormitory rooms and find them better housing but the government has vowed to take "firm action" against any future illegal strikes.

  Last week's strike, the first in Singapore since 1986, has highlighted the country's heavy dependence on migrant labour to drive its economic growth amid a labour shortage resulting from falling birth rates.

  Strikes are illegal for workers in "essential services" such as transport unless they give 14 days' prior notice and meet other requirements.

  Source:  http://bit.ly/TBJCjM 

  hah haha, our PAP govt popular liao over the region, hip hip hooray!!!!!

  UN going to take this into account to assess human right issue in Singapore.    

• troublemaker2005

  5 Dec 12, 19:44

  siasway. come here look for work, no pay riase go back country kaopei kao bu. cum singapore strike one mroe time lah. all send back or stay at changi MBS hotel. strike tehre for what? cum here strike somemore lah.

   

  very free no job to do make banners and strike issit? gt a job lah.

• laurence82

  5 Dec 12, 21:00

  those Hk labour activists must be pro china

  most hong kongers dont like prcs

• troublemaker2005

  5 Dec 12, 23:06

  cum here and strike lah strike somemore?

  no marlerno farler  teech arh?

  wanna teech us how to run our country arhj?

   

  cum cum tell us straight in the face. 

   

  mei jia jiao, si bu si ying wei jia li mei yang 'Jiao'?

• Medicated Oil

  5 Dec 12, 23:15

  Actually it may be worse if they have to find a place to live.

  They will miss the dorm.

  As for the strike in HK, if they are SERIOUS, come over to Singapore and strike.

  Dun wayang over at HK.

  They dun even know what really happened.

   

• charlize

  5 Dec 12, 23:49

  local event turn into international event.

   

  make people damn stressed.

• Zilchster

  6 Dec 12, 01:33

  Frankly, screw all these activists. Who are they to interfere in Singapore's affairs? I dislike their 'I'm holier than thou' moralist approach. Hey, US, Australia and many other countries have issues with human rights too. And please, China itself has human rights issues. And seriously, those people from Hong Kong protesting about us? Seriously, some of your people have voiced their approval against giving domestic workers PR in Hong Kong, and many are not happy with China, so what gives you the moral high ground to criticise Singapore?

  That said, Singapore is lacking in the area of human rights or freedom. Something had got to give in the pursuit of wanting to become affluent, so our moral compass was sacrificed. We had some freedoms taken away. Yes, it all boils down to the pro-business policy and of course businesses want to reduce costs so cheap labour is good for them in order to make more profit. 

  As for no rights to strike, well, giving our self-serving attitude, don't you think that Singaporeans would abuse that freedom to strike for better pay and all that. If we don't have a stable labour force, what will happen? Companies will pull out. Companies like Singapore because of its pro business policy which makes doing business stable.  

• charlize

  6 Dec 12, 02:41

   

  You want cheaper better faster, then this is the consequence which people have been telling them about.

• fudgester

  6 Dec 12, 10:02

  Seriously, what's their freaking problem?

  A bunch of striking PRC workers in Singapore gets fired, and it becomes an issue for Hong Kong?

  If they love the PRC strikers so much, bring them over to Hong Kong and offer them jobs in the Hong Kong bus company lah!

• Dalforce 1941

  6 Dec 12, 10:04

   

  Striking bus drivers in Singapore face arrest and deportation

  By a correspondent 
  5 December 2012

  On November 26, 171 bus drivers of SMRT, Singapore’s second largest public transport operator, went on strike to fight for higher wages and better living conditions. The bus drivers are part of a contingent of 450 workers that SMRT had recruited from China on a two-year work permit contract.

  Bus drivers in Singapore are one of the lowest paid sections of workers, with a base salary between 1075 and 1600 Singapore dollars (US$885-1,315) per month and a working week of 44 hours. With an almost 1 million-strong contingent, foreign workers represent almost one third of the Singaporean labour force.

  They keep the Singapore economy running, working in low-paid jobs in the service, construction and manufacturing industries.

  With ever rising living costs, these workers are forced to work overtime to make ends meet, especially when they have to support their families back home in China.

  Income inequality has increased tremendously over the last two decades, with Singapore’s Gini coefficient ranging at the level of 0.473 in 2011. (The Gini scale ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing a society where everybody earns equal income and 1 standing for a society where one person earns all the income.)

  The tax-free treatment of capital gains and other pro-market policies of the Singapore government have attracted numerous hedge funds to set up their headquarters on this island, creating a society with the world’s highest concentration of millionaire households (approximately 15.5 percent of all households).

  The policy to stimulate economic growth in terms of increase of GDP has led to a growth of the population from some 3.3 million to 5.3 million within the last 10 years. With a low birth rate, the demand for additional labour could only be met by enticing workers from China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and neighbouring countries of Southeast Asia to accept timed job contracts offering just a little more income than they could earn in their home country. Workers are usually locked away in dormitories, separated from the local population. Any contact with local Singaporeans is discouraged.

  There is an established system of divide and conquer, with foreign workers receiving lower pay for the same work compared to Singaporean workers. Competition with foreign workers is used to keep the remuneration for the local workforce at a low level. Employers can save the contributions for Medisave and retirement when employing foreigners.

  With the rising costs of living, doubling of the rental costs for accommodation and even the property prices of the government-funded HDB apartments, there has been a growing unhappiness among Singaporeans.

  The frustration of the Chinese bus drivers boiled over when the SMRT management neglected their complaints and demands for over half a year.

  The main demand of the drivers focused on salary, bonus payments, working time and accommodation. In 2012, SMRT, which is 54 percent owned by the state investment firm Temasek Holdings, had raised the basic pay for Singaporean bus drivers from $1,375 to $1,600 Singapore dollars in two steps, the pay for Malaysian bus drivers from S$1,200 to S$1,400, and only from S$1,000 to S$1,075 for the Chinese drivers. While the Malaysian bus drivers receive a 13th month bonus payment every year, the Chinese bus drivers are paid only one month’s salary at the end of their two-year contract.

  Their demand was to receive at least the same payment as other foreign workers; they did not question the higher pay for Singaporean bus drivers. Further, they demanded that their accommodation be improved, as they have to share one bedroom with eight to ten persons, bed-to-bed. Some rooms are infested with bed bugs and other insects. With drivers working in different shifts, there is little chance for an undisturbed sleep.

  SMRT had also introduced a six-day working week instead of the five-day week, starting on July 1, without seeking agreement by the workforce. While the weekly 44 working hours remain the same and are being spread over six days, the workers miss the overtime payment that they had received before when working an extra day.

  The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) had made no effort to support the Chinese bus drivers. On the weekend of November 24-25, this situation led to the latter’s decision to take the matter into their own hands, not knowing about the strict laws in Singapore regulating any strike.

  On Monday morning, November 26, 171 drivers refused to board the shuttle bus to their SMRT station and put forward their demands. This led to an immediate outcry of all government institutions involved in social and work related matters, which reverberated in the local news media. All hell broke loose, as this was the first “illegal” strike in Singapore for over 25 years.

  Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin declared the industrial dispute as an “illegal strike” that had hurt “industrial harmony”, and that the government had “zero tolerance for this”. “Taking the law into your own hands is not acceptable under any circumstances—certainly especially when it involves essential services”, he said.

  During the entire day that Monday, SMRT management put pressure on the striking workers. Police went into the dormitories to intimidate the workers by threatening them with the legal consequences of their action. Medical teams were sent in to verify if some of the workers were entitled to claim sick leave. A delegation from the Chinese embassy went in to put additional pressure on the workers.

  Despite all this activity, 88 workers continued their strike on Tuesday while the others went back to work for fear of losing their jobs.

  Instead of supporting the workers, the NTUC issued a statement that the strike was illegal and “must and will be dealt with firmly, regardless of whether the workers are local or foreign”.

  Cham Hui Fong, assistant secretary-general of NTUC, said: “It’s important that they understand that to resolve their issues is not through striking or not going back to work, but in communicating with people. If the management is not talking to them, then I think it’s the role of the workers to make sure management listens to them”. But that was exactly what the strike was about: “to make sure management listens to them”.

  Paragraph 9 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in Singapore stipulates that any workers engaging in an illegal strike “shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both”.

  According to this law, workers should notify the management 14 days before they intend to go on strike and follow other regulations, which in total would undermine the whole purpose of the strike.

  The local online newspaper TODAY reported on November 28: “When asked if they were worried about losing their jobs, one of the drivers involved in the strike said: ‘We only resorted to this because we had no choice. What we are also hoping is for the company to resolve things in the quickest way’. Another driver, a 33-year-old from Henan province, said they felt that ‘if we didn’t speak up for ourselves, we could be further disadvantaged in the future’”.

  The intimidating actions from the side of the state authorities and the local trade union prevented any solidarity between the workers. The striking bus drivers were standing alone. On Wednesday, November 28, they went back to work, while SMRT took some cosmetic action regarding the dormitories, but without giving in to the salary demands.

  The state authorities, however, did not lose time in following through with the threats they had announced earlier. In order to set a precedent, they arrested five of the strike leaders, He Jun Ling, 32, Gao Yue Qiang, 32, Liu Xiangying, 33, Wang Xianjie, 33, and Bao Feng Shan, 38, and charged them with instigating the drivers to take part in the strike. He Jun Ling was charged with the additional offense of making an online post about the strike. On Monday, December 3, Bao Feng Shan was sentenced to six weeks’ jail for taking part in an illegal strike. The four remaining strike leaders will most likely face even stronger sentences.

  On Saturday, December 1, 29 of the workers were picked up from their dormitories with their belongings gathered in plastic bags and brought to the Admiralty West Prison in Woodlands. They had their work permits revoked and were channeled to Changi Airport on the following day, shielded from the public by the police and flown out of Singapore back to China.

  The strong reaction by the government signifies their fear of potential future workers struggles that could develop, not only among foreign workers, but with the local workforce as well, given the dependence of the Singaporean economy on the fragile world market and financial system.

  The Workers Party that had gained a sensational support in the last national election (See “Singapore election reflects anti-government groundswell”) demonstrated with a vague statement that they are anything but a defender of workers’ interests. After complaining that “bus services were disrupted and commuters suffered inconveniences”, they declared that to express their grievances, workers must act “within the bounds of the law”.

  Concerning the arrests of workers, they refrained from any comment as “it would not be appropriate to comment on these specific cases”, adding, “Our MPs will be asking the government questions on this issue during the next sitting of parliament”.

  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/dec2012/sing-d05.shtml

   

• SBS6305H

  6 Dec 12, 10:07

  Originally posted by fudgester:

  Seriously, what's their freaking problem?

  A bunch of striking PRC workers in Singapore gets fired, and it becomes an issue for Hong Kong?

  If they love the PRC strikers so much, bring them over to Hong Kong and offer them jobs in the Hong Kong bus company lah!

  must defend own kind ma.

• Dalforce 1941

  6 Dec 12, 10:13

  Maybe they are hard core leftists.

  Proletarian Internationalism

  Proletarian internationalism, sometimes referred to as international socialism, is a Marxist social class concept based on the view that capitalism is now a global system, and therefore the working class must act as a global class if it is to defeat it.

  Workers should struggle in solidarity with their fellow workers in other countries on the basis of a common class interest...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism

• fudgester

  6 Dec 12, 10:21

  Originally posted by SBS6305H:

  must defend own kind ma.

  As laurence has correctly pointed out, many Hong Kongers have no love for mainland PRCs.

  So what's the problem with these guys?

• Kuali Baba

  6 Dec 12, 11:19

  Originally posted by fudgester:

  As laurence has correctly pointed out, many Hong Kongers have no love for mainland PRCs.

  So what's the problem with these guys?

  Wherever they come from, they're still human beings who shouldn't be taken advantage of. It's still not right to strike like that without warning, go ahead and charge them but they were desperate to be heard. I have no issues with the pay but it's deplorable to house people like that, change the work week without consultation and deport them without allowing them access to legal advice.

• sbst275

  6 Dec 12, 13:34

  They're likely the pro Beijing camp...