4.7 Conclusion In conclusion, the findings suggest that the low-wage worker in Singapore faces perplexing dilemmas in terms of the best way to improve his or her living conditions. Permanent work offers employment security and benefits, but at wages difficult for him or her to enjoy a standard of living closer to the median level of income. Nonpermanent work offers the promise of higher wages with greater flexibility that appears real and tangible. However, the worker loses out on other benefits including access to housing and retirement funds through CPF. What is disheartening is that in exercising agency to take on non-permanent work to improve his or her living conditions, the self-motivated individual also inadvertently compromises his capacity to deepen his expertise, to progress and maintain long-term employability when taking non-permanent work in the low-wage occupations surveyed.
In the final
analysis, intervention strategies cannot focus solely on the individual non-permanent worker. Instead, a holistic approach is required that also addresses employers’ ability to design ‘good’ jobs and developmental opportunities at good wages and conditions. We note too that while work intervention strategies may work for the workers under the Enterpriser and the Stuck profiles, they are less likely to be effective for the Lifestylers who tend to make their employment decisions based on non-economic considerations. This necessitates a deeper understanding of the priorities of the Lifestylers, and the solutions for them are likely to go beyond work intervention.
Haphazard Occupational Narratives: the Work and Developmental Experiences of Non-permanent Workers in Low-wage Occupations in Singapore 46
