Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Updates
-
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033973\" time=\"1628737359\" user_id=\"28674:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?[/quote]There is a chatbot on MOM website. Did you try asking there?
https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/default-document-library/annex-a009bdc806d184cc5b22010612ba0702e.pdfemoh\" post_id=\"2033968\" time=\"1628733064\" user_id=\"10618:
[quote=slmkhoo post_id=2033962 time=1628729454 user_id=28674]Question about MOM's SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: \"From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5.\"
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I'm confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2033975\" time=\"1628737967\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2033975 time=1628737967 user_id=53606]
There is a chatbot on MOM website. Did you try asking there?[/quote]I had to fill in full name, IC, then they asked for UEN! At that point, I gave up. Just to ask a question!slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033973\" time=\"1628737359\" user_id=\"28674:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?
Anyway, I don't think I can be the only confused one - and since we have till 19 Aug, I'll wait for some larger organisation with a proper HR/Admin dept. to realise that the rule isn't clear. -
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033973\" time=\"1628737359\" user_id=\"28674:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?[/quote]Just revert to pre-5 April split-team arrangement (e.g. alternate work-days) or staggered start-time arrangement (alternate AM/PM session), isn't it? So long as at any one point in time, there cannot be more than 50% staff strength in office. :scratchhead:
https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/default-document-library/annex-a009bdc806d184cc5b22010612ba0702e.pdfemoh\" post_id=\"2033968\" time=\"1628733064\" user_id=\"10618:
[quote=slmkhoo post_id=2033962 time=1628729454 user_id=28674]Question about MOM's SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: \"From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5.\"
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I'm confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this.
Before 75% was allowed on 5 April, weren't every desk-bound PME working on 50% for many months already? How did your HR split you guys? The only diff between the HA phases was the max no. of colleagues (2 or 5) allowed to social-gather for say, dept birthday celebrations, pow-wows or breakfast meetings.
For orgs/sectors providing essential services or roaming/onsite services (who are not able to WFH), I would imagine HR could exclude their frontliners from the count? Meaning the 50% cap applies only to their office admin/backroom PMEs (''who are able to WFH'') staff strength?
I mean like the Singapore Police Force, 50% white collar staff based in Novena ''who can WFH'' will stay at home, whereas the uniformed personnel will still need to patrol the streets? Or the F&B/retail/mfg plant workers don't stop work, but 50% back office admin staff could WFH. -
SG_KP1\" post_id=\"2033636\" time=\"1628414823\" user_id=\"188234:
Oh no pls don't apologise for sharing your views.
Sorry, I forgot if I was with the prosecution or the defense
. Seriously, what I meant to highlight is some of the difficulties or issues in trying to impose a nationwide mandate (think they are mentioned in the links although the articles are generally pro mandate).
Apologies to all if this is at risk of running off the tracks or into a blackhole many have no cares about. :imsorry:
I was just sharing my observation that our MTF has a tendency to follow CDC & FDA for many of their vaccination policies. E.g. recently 10 Aug, Defense Sec Lloyd Austin announced that members of the U.S. military will be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine beginning next month under a plan laid out by the Pentagon Monday and endorsed by President Joe Biden.
Lo & behold, https://www.facebook.com/ngenghen/posts/4338648362895056 that all our military personnel will be vaccinated, unless they are not medically fit to do so.
I don't know who followed whom, but we're always doing similar things to the US and the UK!
So, wrt mandating Pfizer for >=16yo, I won't be surprised we will do likewise after FDA grants the full BLA! But of course Scootopia also raised some good points why it shouldn't be rushed. -
zeit.\" post_id=\"2034014\" time=\"1628746035\" user_id=\"194295:
We are very small organisation (14 pax, many part-timers), too small to split-team as most functions are performed by just 1 person. In earlier phases, we made sure that no more than 50% were in the office at a time, limited each person's in-office time to <50%, and tried to minimise the no. of colleagues any person would come into contact with. At that time, the rules were very clear that these were the parameters we should work within.
Just revert to pre-5 April split-team arrangement (e.g. alternate work-days) or staggered start-time arrangement (alternate AM/PM session), isn't it? So long as at any one point in time, there cannot be more than 50% staff strength in office. :scratchhead:
Unlike the earlier phases, the rule for 19 Aug is ambiguous. It would help if they would just give a few examples, since they obviously are unable to articulate what they have in mind clearly! Maybe I'm over-thinking it, and I should just assume they are reverting to the old rules. But I don't want the organisation to be fined because of me. And if MOM wants people to use their chatbot, they shouldn't require so much info upfront. -
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033959\" time=\"1628727691\" user_id=\"28674:
The amount of fake news and conspiracy theories related to Covid vaccine is staggering. Many of anti-vaxers claim that state medias like Straits Times and CNA are just pushing for government approved narratives, but in their bids to be contrarians they turn to something worse. I have relatives who are very easily susceptible to these fake news, but they grudgingly got themselves jabbed after it's clear daily life is going to be very inconvenient for them. Those remaining hardcore anti-vaxers are probably hardcore anti-establishment anyway and I predict eventually government would mandate vaccination.
But when it is known that the risk of getting to the \"death bed\" stage is higher (especially for some groups), and a vaccine, even if fairly new but has been well-tested, can limit the no. who are likely to get to the \"death bed\" stage, I think it is fair to encourage it. How long is long enough, balanced with the no. who may die of the disease before then? And how many of the reluctant are going to be around (for all sorts of reasons) by then anyway? (I am referring to those aged over 60 or so).Schootopia\" post_id=\"2033938\" time=\"1628705899\" user_id=\"143961:
.. I observe a rather clear shift in the official narrative to give prominent emphasise to unvaccinated elderlys in Singapore dropping dead on a near daily basis, repeated broadcasts of messages by senior politician claiming that vaccine is safe, and intentional policies to differentiate Singaporeans into two camps of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Fact is,
- mRNA vaccines have no unprecedents;
- they are only on Emergency Use Authorisation Status by FDA;
- if they are fully authorised by the end of this year, this will be unusually rushed. By the usual drug approval staging, it probably means some low frequency or long-term effect, which can be high-risk and not obvious, are not yet well understood.
- vaccines, by definition, are targeted at people who are otherwise healthy. It's not a situation of giving an experimental therapeutics to someone on death bed.
And the \"otherwise healthy\" can help to reduce the risk of people getting to the \"death bed\" stage by getting vaccinated. Since deciding against vaccination raises the risks for others, I fully support the differentiated measures. Some tweaking for those who are unable to take the vaccination should be given (for fairness). But those who choose not to be vaccinated should weigh all the conditions when making that decision.
Yes, new medical treatments/vaccines by definition have a shorter track record, but serious situations require taking some risk. The vast majority of medical workers and scientists back these vaccines, and they even administer them to their elderly parents, family members and themselves. I find that persuasive.
We know now that vaccines do not completely prevent infection or serious symptoms, but they still significantly lower the risk of getting one. Yes, the long term side-effects of these Mrna vaccines are still not known, but seriously, how bad can they be? I doubt we are going to get cancer or infertile or turn into zombies. -
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2034027\" time=\"1628748756\" user_id=\"28674:
OK, PT will be a bit tricky. When MTF dialed back to 50% on 8 May, HR should advise their staff accordingly.
We are very small organisation (14 pax, many part-timers), too small to split-team as most functions are performed by just 1 person. In earlier phases, we made sure that no more than 50% were in the office at a time, limited each person's in-office time to <50%, and tried to minimise the no. of colleagues any person would come into contact with. At that time, the rules were very clear that these were the parameters we should work within.zeit.\" post_id=\"2034014\" time=\"1628746035\" user_id=\"194295:
Just revert to pre-5 April split-team arrangement (e.g. alternate work-days) or staggered start-time arrangement (alternate AM/PM session), isn't it? So long as at any one point in time, there cannot be more than 50% staff strength in office. :scratchhead:
Unlike the earlier phases, the rule for 19 Aug is ambiguous. It would help if they would just give a few examples, since they obviously are unable to articulate what they have in mind clearly! Maybe I'm over-thinking it, and I should just assume they are reverting to the old rules. But I don't want the organisation to be fined because of me. And if MOM wants people to use their chatbot, they shouldn't require so much info upfront.
Hmm, I suppose your own HR probably has to work out a timetable on an Excel spreadsheet to avoid having more than 7 warm bodies physically in office
Maybe for PTers' 22 hrs/wk, Team A goes to office on Mon - Fri (9am-1pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one afternoon of your choice. Team B goes to office on Mon - Fri (2pm-6pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one morning of your choice? :evil:
The remaining FTers on 44hr/wk, they just fill up the remaining slots to ensure no 7 colleagues appear in office at any one point!
I think we Asians are very hardworking and aren't so calculative. We can still be contactable via WA or email at night! -
zeit.\" post_id=\"2034053\" time=\"1628752210\" user_id=\"194295:
We're already very practised at working out schedules after all the changes. My question is whether we can have every member of staff going to the office at various times, or whether only half the staff can return to the office, while the other half are full-time WFH (and cannot return to the office). If you read the MOM statement, it can be interpreted that way as well! When my husband and I read it, I read it has \"return to the past rules\" while he read it as \"only half the staff get to return to the office\". That's what I'm asking.
Maybe for PTers' 22 hrs/wk, Team A goes to office on Mon - Fri (9am-1pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one afternoon of your choice. Team B goes to office on Mon - Fri (2pm-6pm) and WFH for the remaining 2 hrs in one morning of your choice? -
I have heard of alternate week arrangements to wfh. I believe as long as 50% workforce can return, the rest is up to each company’s digression.
-
Yes in the pre-75% days (ie 50% days), we were to operate on a split team basis coming in on each alternate week. So Team A comes in Week 1 and Team B Week 2. There should never be overlap between Team 1 and 2 despite physical presence in office not hitting the 50% quota. When 75% comes, it becomes anyone can come in provided quota at 75%. So I am assuming it should be back to the prior 50% rule (alternate split team/week arrangement).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login