Some truth on workers rights

I recently read up on some information from International Trade Union Confederation (Asia Pacific) with regard to rights of workers and how they should also cater for the needs of employers. For example, you don't ask for a raise for all the workers when the company is losing money, and the employers are also taking a pay cut. You can also look at the relationship between yourself and your maid.

However, they did bring up a point which is quite true. It was recognised that there is a lack of formal institutions that promote the cause of workers while meeting the competing needs of employers and governments. Workers rights are minimal and in some instances, workers were made to sacrifice their benefits. Is contract or irregular work meeting the needs of workers? How about unfair employment contracts that workers are made to sign even though they may not have any idea what they are getting themselves into?

From the gist of the statement, it will infer that formal institutions that promote the cause of workers should be independent and should not have any representations from the employers and governments in the decision body. This is to prevent conflict of interest because the needs of workers and needs of employers and governments are conflicting.

Therefore, I can conclude that the biggest trade union in Singapore, NTUC, is not a trade union because representatives from the government is in the union's decision body. Representatives from the employers and government can be in the steering committee but they shouldn't be represented in the decision body itself.

Will Coca-cola have a representative from Pepsi in the Board's decision committee? It seems that over here, this is perfectly normal.