Thai House rejects labour bill fearing 30% cost surge

[webfact]

 

A labour welfare bill proposed by the Move Forward Party (MFP) has been rejected by the House of Representatives, sparking concerns of a potential 30% increase in labour costs across Thailand. Despite this setback, the MFP had some success as the House consented to two additional draft bills, one from the Bhumjaithai Party and another from the MFP.

 

List-MP Sia Jampathong from the MFP, who penned the rejected draft, expressed his disappointment with the House’s decision. His bill was designed to improve working conditions and promote a healthier work-life balance for all employees.

 

The MFP has criticised the government coalition parties for allegedly blocking any bill suggested by the main opposition party.

 

Contrary to these accusations, Chanin Rungtanakiat, a Pheu Thai Party list-MP and deputy spokesman for the party, revealed that another labour welfare bill presented by the MFP was passed just yesterday. This bill, along with another proposed by Worasit Liangprasit of the Bhumjaithai Party, gained approval during its first reading.

The rejected bill from Sia Jampathong only secured 149 votes in support, with 252 MPs opposing it due to concerns over potential damage to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Chanin Rungtanakiat explained that if the bill were to become law, labour costs could surge by up to 30%, potentially causing harmful economic effects on SMEs.

Sia’s draft demanded employers to employ workers under monthly contracts, paying them at least the minimum wage, and providing the same benefits offered to permanent employees. The draft also suggested a limit on maximum working hours to 40 hours per week for all jobs, excluding those classified as dangerous.

 

In contrast, the Bhumjaithai MP’s draft bill requires employers to provide full pay to workers on paternal leave for a maximum of 49 days out of a total of 98 days and also grants paternity leave rights to male employees, reported Bangkok Post.

 

The additional MFP bill, proposed by list-MP Wanvipa Maison, seeks to extend the maximum number of paternity leave days from the current 98 to 180, and demands employers to pay workers on paternity leave for a minimum of 90 days.

 

by Mitch Connor

Photo courtesy of Nutthawat Wichieanbut

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-03-08

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

[WHansen]

Too many foreign financed "hubs" at risk if the labour costs rise

[ikke1959]

Of course it is being rejected.. Everything that MFP will be proposing will be rejected to prevent that the MFP has influence in laws instead of the Government parties.. The false statement that it is harmful for the economy is brought in but is just a reason to reject it. In Western countries there are 40 hrs workweeks and salary raise has a little effect on the price.. Just because if people get more money they are able to spend more and that is better for the economy. But the dinosaurs don't see that as they are afraid that their businesses will earn less... The greed and unwilling to ente rthe 21st century is enormous here

[hotchilli]

Keep the poor poor and no-one will be buying anything.

Industry will catch on to that soon.

[john donson]

funny how thai men are too lazy for to many jobs even without education

 

that they have to import cheaper slave labor that is not paid thai wages

[worgeordie]

Too many businessmen in parliament for them to pass any relief for the workers 

too many people here working 6 day weeks ,they are living to work ,not working

for a living , when I first started work at 15 ,that's 63 years ago  it was 5.5 day ,

Thailand still has a long way to catch up.

 

regards worgeordie

 

[SOTIRIOS]

...A Glaring Example Of Ignoring The Well-Being Of Those That Voted For You...(?)

...Was It An Election Promise, As Well...(?)

(But It's In The Best Interests Of Society)(?)

...Hahaha...

[dinsdale]

Profits before people. Trickle down effect is a load of BS so please don't use this in retort. Globally a small minority are getting very rich whist the vast majority are getting poorer. This sham non-elected govt is jam pack full of business people. No way will profits be cut into to help the worker. Oh no. Money must be spent on HUBS and capital works which puts money into their mates pockets and their own pockets. Spending your way out is Keynsian economics but it doesn't work when only the big boys benefit from such spending.

[dinsdale]

6 minutes ago, SOTIRIOS said:

...A Glaring Example Of Ignoring The Well-Being Of Those That Voted For You...(?)

...Was It An Election Promise, As Well...(?)

(But It's In The Best Interests Of Society)(?)

...Hahaha...

The majority of people voted for those not in govt. 

[Retfed50]

4 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Keep the poor poor and no-one will be buying anything.

Industry will catch on to that soon.

No they won't!