No wage-hike fund for employers: Kittiratt

Akarin Srilert,

Thammarat Kijchalong,

Petchanet Pratruangkrai

The Nation

Labourers carry large bags of goods while working at a market in Bangkok Friday.

FTI keeps up compensation push; minister denies recent plant closures caused by Bt300 wage

BANGKOK: -- Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong yesterday ruled out the idea of setting up a fund to compensate employers in 70 provinces for the added cost of raising the daily minimum wage to Bt300.

Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) chairman Payungsak Chartsutipol, however, said the Joint Standing Committee on Trade, Industries and Banking would continue pushing for the fund.

"This is a measure that will really help small and medium-sized enterprises [sMEs]," he said.

Payungsak said the private sector did not expect the government to pay the difference forever - just for three years.

"The Finance Ministry should find some money to finance this fund," Payungsak said. "The joint committee will definitely seek more discussions with the ministry."

FTI vice chairman Vallop Vitanakorn said it was "really terrible" that the government had ignored pleas to set up the fund. He pointed out that the government's Bt300-a-day wage policy would significantly raise production costs and cause many SMEs to suffer liquidity problems.

Since the government has cancelled its plan to set up the fund, the FTI will call for an urgent meeting this coming Monday to draw up a plan to help enterprises.

Labour Minister Phadermchai Sasomsap explained that Kittiratt had decided against such a fund because it would require a massive budget.

"Financially speaking, the idea is not feasible," Phadermchai said.

He was speaking after a meeting with Kittiratt to discuss possible measures to reduce the adverse impacts of the government's policy to raise the minimum daily wage to Bt300 across the country.

In April last year, the minimum wage was boosted significantly to Bt300 in seven big provinces, including Bangkok. On January 1, the minimum wage was raised to that level in the 70 remaining provinces. For less industrialised provinces like Phayao, this represents a drastic hike and employers are struggling.

Many workers are feeling the pinch, too. Hundreds have been laid off and many more have found their employment conditions changed.

Many employers want the government to pay the difference between the Bt300 and the old wage rate, which stood at just Bt222 a week ago.

Phadermchai yesterday said Kittiratt had already turned down this request. However, the labour minister said a meeting would be held next week to determine what additional measures could be introduced to help employers cope with the wage hike.

According to Phadermchai, at least five measures will be tabled before the Cabinet at its meeting next Tuesday. These include a lowering of the government fee at accommodation services offered by SMEs from Bt80 to Bt40 per room per night.

"The impacts of the wage hike in 70 provinces should become clear in mid-March," Phadermchai said.

He dismissed any suggestion that recent business closures and layoffs were the result of the January 1 pay increase.

"These companies have long operated in the red. They have received fewer orders from foreign customers for a long time. Many of them decided to shut down their business at the end of 2012 in order to reduce the severance pay. After the wage hike takes effect, the [severance] amount is definitely higher," he said.

FTI vice chairman Vallop, who is also secretary-general of the Thai Garment Manufacturers Association, argued that, "The problems don't arise from the enterprises' shrinking sales. The problems arise from the fact that the rising labour cost has reduced the entrepreneurs' competitiveness."

Vallop said business owners have raised their prices in response to soaring costs incurred due to the wage policy, prompting customers to turn to suppliers in other countries.

He said the impact of hiking the wage nationwide would seriously hit SMEs in the garment industry and hurt mass-production centres in urban areas, as they relied heavily on labour.

Garment manufacturers may try to adjust by moving their plants to neighbouring countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, or by downsizing, Vallop said.

"If they raise prices, they may lose customers to rivals operating from countries where labour costs are much lower," he said.

Kuang Pei San Food Products, the manufacturer of products under the Smiling Fish brand, said it was doing its best to freeze prices until the second quarter of this year.

"But in the third quarter we may have to increase the price of our canned fish for the first time in four years. The price may go up by about 5 per cent," the company's deputy marketing director Kraiserm Tohtubtiang said.

Somchai Pornrattanacharoen, chairman of the Thai Retailers Association, said: "Now that this policy has taken effect in 70 other provinces, too, it's clear many more industries will increase their prices and many small enterprises will have to go out of business."

Somchai warned that the government's wage policy could push prices in Thailand up to the point that things here become 200 per cent more expensive than in neighbouring countries.

-- The Nation 2013-01-05

Well ! You get what you voted for and now you want the Government to pick up the bill.!! Fat Chance. Why do you think Yingluck waited so long to impose her bill overall. When first introduced it was enacted in regions where the minimum wage was far above theNational average in general so it had minimum impact, but now it is spread accross the vast rural provences. Because she knew full well that it was simply a vote buying peice of garbage for the millions of under priveledged and that it would result in financial turmoil and inflation. Which will have little inpact on the corrupt and elite

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to determine what a 66% increase in wages with no productivity gain will engender. Buffalo and sheep. Be careful what you wish for.

Well ! You get what you voted for and now you want the Government to pick up the bill.!! Fat Chance. Why do you think Yingluck waited so long to impose her bill overall. When first introduced it was enacted in regions where the minimum wage was far above theNational average in general so it had minimum impact, but now it is spread accross the vast rural provences. Because she knew full well that it was simply a vote buying peice of garbage for the millions of under priveledged and that it would result in financial turmoil and inflation. Which will have little inpact on the corrupt and elite

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to determine what a 66% increase in wages with no productivity gain will engender. Buffalo and sheep. Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly, the "people" got exactly what they asked for. Hope they are happy now. Oh wait, lots of them have lost their jobs . . . wonder why that happened?

It's about 2000 baht/month/employee more. Only!

And like I wrote earlier to this problem:

The adaption of the prices seems to work, only the adaption of the wages isn't.

Looks to me, like many employers expecting, there profit has to be 1/3 higher, now too. Or they "can't" pay the higher wage.

But I can't see a 'minimum profit' law here.

The fund is not planed, to support the small businesses. It is planed, to keep the profit margin high, for the 'not so small businesses'!

To let the government pay for the higher living costs (income of many SME's, b/c they will charge higher), and for the 'stupid' idea, to let the employees earn more money.

And that 'banking is pushing for the fund', a group of business, that clearly is paying better, as 300 baht/day, already:

Who would benefit with higher income/bonus, simple only when this fund got set up?

I worked for a big multi national in the UK, and I can tell you one thing. A Large %age increase was always followed by redundancies, and in house jobs lost to contractors. You think Thai bosses should be any different?

I worked for a big multi national in the UK, and I can tell you one thing. A Large %age increase was always followed by redundancies, and in house jobs lost to contractors. You think Thai bosses should be any different?

Of course not.

In special with this 'revenues' expected.

But I doubt, that in the UK, a company with 20-30% revenues would easily get away with it.

But, actually, since the iron lady: I'm probably wrong with that.

Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong yesterday ruled out the idea of setting up a fund to compensate employers in 70 provinces for the added cost of raising the daily minimum wage to Bt300.

Labour Minister Phadermchai Sasomsap explained that Kittiratt had decided against such a fund because it would require a massive budget.

"These companies have long operated in the red. They have received fewer orders from foreign customers for a long time. Many of them decided to shut down their business at the end of 2012 in order to reduce the severance pay. After the wage hike takes effect, the [severance] amount is definitely higher," he said.

Surely all those employers already profitted from the Corporate tax reduction from 30% to 23%?

How massive would the budget need to be? In the order of THB 100 billion like the NHSF budget? THB 400 billion like the price pledging funds? More and really massive?

So companies already in the red shutdown. Well, who am I to not believe Labour Minister Phadermchai

Thed good news continue thanks to the excellent policies of the PTP government. Dont they make you proud.

Edited January 5, 201313 yr by waza

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

Well, who am I to not believe Labour Minister Phadermchai

The elderly dutch guy that stuck his finger in a dyke and lived to tell the tale.

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

Except me!

Well, who am I to not believe Labour Minister Phadermchai

The elderly dutch guy that stuck his finger in a dyke and lived to tell the tale.

My dear gKid, I feel I must protest. Respectfully of course, but none the less protest. As you may remember two days ago we had JThing write "53 elderly? I think not. 53 is the new 45.". With me being 57 there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to suggest I'm 'elderly'. Shame on you

Mind you I just read an article on this very subject. Now let me see, where did I put it

...

...

oh yes, here

"New research shows naming things quickly and accurately more difficult from our fifties"

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-quickly-accurately-difficult-fifties.html

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

About 5% correct. Wages are not kept low by any regulation - this is about the minimum wage. In some provinces it is a small increase but in others it is more significant. This is stupid for two reasons: first the rise should have been gradual; & second it removes any incentive for poorer provinces to attract new businesses.

I am all for fair wages but this ill-conceived scheme will have an impact on inflation. I suspect it already has although the government, predictably denies it. It is nothing but another type of vote buying scheme.

What is more needed is some sort of effort to boost Thailand's productivity & the skill levels of Thai workers. Both of those factors would automatically lead to higher wages.

Laughing at your own 'jokes' doesn't make them funny.

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

About 5% correct. Wages are not kept low by any regulation - this is about the minimum wage. In some provinces it is a small increase but in others it is more significant. This is stupid for two reasons: first the rise should have been gradual; & second it removes any incentive for poorer provinces to attract new businesses.

I am all for fair wages but this ill-conceived scheme will have an impact on inflation. I suspect it already has although the government, predictably denies it. It is nothing but another type of vote buying scheme.

What is more needed is some sort of effort to boost Thailand's productivity & the skill levels of Thai workers. Both of those factors would automatically lead to higher wages.

Laughing at your own 'jokes' doesn't make them funny.

Precisely, this is the minimum wage, employers are free to pay anything above this amount dependant on market forces, required skill level and availability of workers. Even your fellow redshirt supported, ferrangel claims to pay his employees 500 baht per day. However, the size and timing of the increase appears to be the problem here, it would have been better to apply it in increments over the term of the government.

"wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works".

I guess this statement refers to the PTP government.

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

Regardless of your political idealogy and free market enterprize you have certainly got your maths wrong if you consider 34% as a small increase.

Your Reds under the bed mentality is a standard response to issues that you can not justify.

The only free market enterprize in this scenario will be a frre falling economic response.

Furthermore it was a young Dutch guy who got his finger stuck in the dyke., not an older guy,.... unless you are reffering to a different type of Dyke.

begin removed ...

Furthermore it was a young Dutch guy who got his finger stuck in the dyke., not an older guy,.... unless you are reffering to a different type of Dyke.

As this is regarding gKid's remark

"The elderly dutch guy that stuck his finger in a dyke and lived to tell the tale."

I feel free to reply.

All in all I'm afraid I feel more (really) offended by this later version. So to set the record straight

- My name is not Hansje Brinker

- No one saw me

- It wasn't me

- I just walked past

- I wasn't even near

- how could I know she was ...

- who am I that people think I would be capable of such gruesome act

One or the other, referendum on give back the tax cut or raise the wage.

They set up a wage rate that is unreasonable in many cases.

Then they shove it off onto private enterprise and turn around and admit that it is a huge amount of money more than they as a government could possibly raise.

Perhaps they could have helped out with a little common sense in the raise and the money they are throwing away on there rice scheme scam.

The following quote pretty well says it all about what they really believe.

"Labour Minister Phadermchai Sasomsap explained that Kittiratt had decided against such a fund because it would require a massive budget.

"Financially speaking, the idea is not feasible," Phadermchai said."

What other Government would come up with such an unreasonable plan that they could not raise that much money for. So they shove it off on to private industry and tell people that it will not cause inflation.

I will be nice to them and give them an idiot score on the IQ level. Yes that is being nice to them.

People are entitle to a living wage. Everywhere in the world the greedy employers have a gnashing of teeth when minimum wages are raised. They always seem to get over it. After all, if ALL employers have to pay the increased wage, how is there a disadvantage to any individual, unless the product is for export?

Labor is typically a relatively small component of many products anyway. McDonald's always screams bloody murder in the US when there is a mandatory wage increase, but the labor component on a 99 cent hamburger is something like 3 cents. Their profit on the piece of junk food is more than they pay their employees who make it.

I worked for a big multi national in the UK, and I can tell you one thing. A Large %age increase was always followed by redundancies, and in house jobs lost to contractors. You think Thai bosses should be any different?

It wont be any different here, and will lead to price increases on goods and services. It will be interesting also to see what happens with those employed in Tourism as well, as there were many working under the minimum wage. The other point is that, wages will have to increase across the board, if they increase one level of wages, then the others will also have to increase as well. So far, it looks like a typical PT policy, one with little thought to long term sustainability. Will Minimum wage take into account companies that offer other benefits such as meals, accommodation as part of their package?

People are entitle to a living wage. Everywhere in the world the greedy employers have a gnashing of teeth when minimum wages are raised. They always seem to get over it. After all, if ALL employers have to pay the increased wage, how is there a disadvantage to any individual, unless the product is for export?

Labor is typically a relatively small component of many products anyway. McDonald's always screams bloody murder in the US when there is a mandatory wage increase, but the labor component on a 99 cent hamburger is something like 3 cents. Their profit on the piece of junk food is more than they pay their employees who make it.

"how is there a disadvantage to any individual"

Perhaps when the individual is unemployed, or self-employed, works for a family-business or is retired or living on family-handouts ? The poor, in other words. The prices they pay for everyday-goods/services go up, but there's no automatic rise in income, except for those employed & entitled to the new minimum-wage.

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

I wouldn't have said it was a small increase at all. I agree that the minimum wage should bee increased but I've always said it should be a planned long term policy to gradually raise the wages of low earners rather than what looks like 'vote for us and we'll increase your wages to 300 baht a day'. Companies may well be trying to protect their large profits but this just gives them the push to move elsewhere to cut costs. Some are moving closer to the borders apparently to make use of foreign workers who aren't covered by this minimum. This was a stupid move from an employment viewpoint but I suppose it appeals to the nationalistic tendencies of some who think the government is working only for them and not cheap foreign workers by excluding them.

How long will this level remain? I haven't heard if this is going to be maintained year on year or just wait until the next election and promise another big increase. Of course the problem is how to get the majority of the electorate who aren't rich to understand the long term plans rather than the nice quick ones. If the Dems want to get voted again without using populist policies then this is something they need to address.

Minimum wage levels are practised in many countries including my own but I don't know anywhere that does it like this.

Sure people are entitled to a living wage, but they should have to be productive to get it. One of the biggest problems that Thailand has is the basic "lazyness" of the people. Many Thai industries have to employ 2 or 3 people to do what 1 person should be able to do. So now they have to have 2 or 3 times the staff that they sould have to have and everybody expects at least the minimum wage. If the productivity increased then they would have to employ less people and they would not be affected as much by the minumum wage increase. But if productivity increased and less people were required to produce the same output, then what would happen to unemployment. That would be another big problem.

I used the word "lazyness" for lack of any better word to describe that particular value of Thai society

wow, it seems some people have absolutely no understanding of basic labour economics or of how business works.

Thailand has full employment. This means that there is a labour shortage and that in a free market, labour wages would rise. in Thailand, the wages are kept low by government regulation. I find it odd, that those who would criticize the government for allowing a small increase in the minimum wage condemn the government on the basis that it is anti business. On the contrary, the forced wage controls is anti free market and anti capitalist. Those arguing against the free market increase of wages are espousing good old communist central economic planning. That's the <deleted> joke.

One would expect that these stalwarts of free enterprise would actually have a clue to what a free or liberated market entails. Good show lads.

in the interim, I think you are a bunch of commie rats.

I wouldn't have said it was a small increase at all. I agree that the minimum wage should bee increased but I've always said it should be a planned long term policy to gradually raise the wages of low earners rather than what looks like 'vote for us and we'll increase your wages to 300 baht a day'. Companies may well be trying to protect their large profits but this just gives them the push to move elsewhere to cut costs. Some are moving closer to the borders apparently to make use of foreign workers who aren't covered by this minimum. This was a stupid move from an employment viewpoint but I suppose it appeals to the nationalistic tendencies of some who think the government is working only for them and not cheap foreign workers by excluding them.

How long will this level remain? I haven't heard if this is going to be maintained year on year or just wait until the next election and promise another big increase. Of course the problem is how to get the majority of the electorate who aren't rich to understand the long term plans rather than the nice quick ones. If the Dems want to get voted again without using populist policies then this is something they need to address.

Minimum wage levels are practised in many countries including my own but I don't know anywhere that does it like this.

They should have pegged it to inflation years ago. Instead they had this stupid committee with voting where the businesses won in their own interests year after year.

They should have pegged it to inflation years ago. Instead they had this stupid committee with voting where the businesses won in their own interests year after year.

One thing about the changes, I do like the abolition of the variations between provinces, and setting a universal minimum instead.

That's not to say that wages shouldn't be higher in higher-cost/profit areas/industries, just that the actual going-rate ought to be set by market-forces, with the minimum-wage itself being a safety-net minimum.

If an individual worker is unhappy with what they earn, they have the choice of moving to a higher-going-rate area (Bangkok, Chonburi or wherever), of doing overtime or going to a similar job with a better-paying employer, or they can retrain for a more-skilled/better-paid job. Some might be happier to plod along as-they-are, up to them.

The idea of having local committees negotiating was always open to corruption, and hopefully they'll be abolished, with a saving in costs. Then again, perhaps those people like the power it gives them, sitting on pointless committees ?

They should have pegged it to inflation years ago. Instead they had this stupid committee with voting where the businesses won in their own interests year after year.

One thing about the changes, I do like the abolition of the variations between provinces, and setting a universal minimum instead.

That's not to say that wages shouldn't be higher in higher-cost/profit areas/industries, just that the actual going-rate ought to be set by market-forces, with the minimum-wage itself being a safety-net minimum.

If an individual worker is unhappy with what they earn, they have the choice of moving to a higher-going-rate area (Bangkok, Chonburi or wherever), of doing overtime or going to a similar job with a better-paying employer, or they can retrain for a more-skilled/better-paid job. Some might be happier to plod along as-they-are, up to them.

The idea of having local committees negotiating was always open to corruption, and hopefully they'll be abolished, with a saving in costs. Then again, perhaps those people like the power it gives them, sitting on pointless committees ?

I don't like the idea of a nation wide rate. The province rate gave incentives to companies setting up in outer provinces, hence spreading the employment through out the country. The flat nation wide rate means that companies will move closer to ports and the larger cities where transport costs are cheaper.

I don't like the idea of a nation wide rate. The province rate gave incentives to companies setting up in outer provinces, hence spreading the employment through out the country. The flat nation wide rate means that companies will move closer to ports and the larger cities where transport costs are cheaper.

The flat nation wide rate means that companies will move closer to ports and the larger cities where transport costs are cheaper.

Not necessarily true. Transport costs may be cheaper, but other costs like property rental, land purchase, will be much greater. Flat nation wide rate might mean less migration of workers away from their home provinces into big cities. If workers can earn the same money at a factory down the road from where the family home is, no more need to move hundreds of miles into Bangkok. Of course the "if" is quite big as it depends on factories not moving to those ports and big city locations you speak of, but as i say, land prices and other extra expenses might work to discourage that, along with perhaps some government tax incentives for businesses located away from ports and big cities.

In respect to the wage issue and the need to keep it artificially low to encourage poorer provinces' economies, I say pish posh, and say, look at the examples provided in USA/Canada. There are consistent minimum wages throughout Canada and the USA. However, wages have to be higher in major urban centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver. However, what has happened is that many companies, voluntarily relocated to regions where the cost of living was slower and where a lower wage could still provide a decent standard of living. These states and provinces had economic incentive plans that encouraged companies to relocate. What Thailand has failed to do is to encourage manufacturing and intellectual capital businesses to consider other regions. For example, there is no reason why Chiang Mai or even Udon Thani could not be the cities that do the banking transaction processing, or that have call centers. These are cities with infrastructure, and that have universities and technical schools. Why must all financial institution or government processing be in Bangkok? Canada and the USA have located their income tax processing centers outside of their big cities, providing much needed jobs and a boost to the local economies. Saskatchewan, which used to be on of the poorer provinces now is a center of intellectual capital. The same for some US states such as Alabama that attracted pharma R&D.

I agree with many of the postings regarding the matter particularly

1. There really is now no incentive for businesses in the other provinces to stay there now as the labor cost is the same, better to move elsewhere near better transportation efficiency

2. In relation to #1 most provinces were not developed to the same level as other provinces meaning in terms of infrastructure, types of businesses etc, so now over time they will lose out

3. The whole debate of the increase in wage has nothing to do with benefiting thai people it was only done simply for them to get elected period.

4. if thai government officals can do this, next time there is political unrest, both parties can now say elect me now and i'll raise to 400 baht per day, then again we get a new wage increase. Once the dust has settle for a short time. Again when political unrest happens again the next parties will come out and say put me in power and i'll raise the wage to 500 baht a day. Being how unstable thai governments are here who knows, the way things go here may the new wage will wind up getting to 900 baht per day before 2020.

If the thai government had really wanted to do something why did they not

1. Promote and provide financial incentives to open a business in the provinces that would benefit the most

2. Find a way to reduce corruption and change the education system. ( never will happen as the thai elite and government don't want there own citizens to be highly educated or for the matter ask for real changes and demands )

3. Increase in the minimum wage but do it over time.

Edited January 6, 201313 yr by livinthailandos

They should have pegged it to inflation years ago. Instead they had this stupid committee with voting where the businesses won in their own interests year after year.

One thing about the changes, I do like the abolition of the variations between provinces, and setting a universal minimum instead.

That's not to say that wages shouldn't be higher in higher-cost/profit areas/industries, just that the actual going-rate ought to be set by market-forces, with the minimum-wage itself being a safety-net minimum.

If an individual worker is unhappy with what they earn, they have the choice of moving to a higher-going-rate area (Bangkok, Chonburi or wherever), of doing overtime or going to a similar job with a better-paying employer, or they can retrain for a more-skilled/better-paid job. Some might be happier to plod along as-they-are, up to them.

The idea of having local committees negotiating was always open to corruption, and hopefully they'll be abolished, with a saving in costs. Then again, perhaps those people like the power it gives them, sitting on pointless committees ?

I don't like the idea of a nation wide rate. The province rate gave incentives to companies setting up in outer provinces, hence spreading the employment through out the country. The flat nation wide rate means that companies will move closer to ports and the larger cities where transport costs are cheaper.

It will probably mean that the companies in the most advantageous provinces geographically will have to increase to keep their labour also.