But, it , understands that the purpose of the film is to draw attention to poor work practices and that it supports USE’s criticism of such , techniques and the , government’s past interventions to help security officials.
” There are effective ways to do this, and SAS has previously posted USE’s work on our Twitter website to raise awareness.
” It is, however, SAS ‘ view that the SGAG movie is not the right way , to lift or tackle for serious problems. In truth, whatever concept was intended to be , conveyed appears lost amid the tomfoolery of the figures, “it added.
SAS asked that the picture be removed. As of 11.30pm on Thursday, the film was also accessible online.
WHAT THE Coalition SAYS
In reply on Thursday night, USE rejected SAS ‘ statement in a retort undersigned by its leader Ardi Amir, public secretary , Raymond Chin and professional director Steve Tan.
They all argued that SAS ‘ complaints about the video were a “red herring,” meaning it diverted viewers ‘ attention away from its main point.
The union stated that this is its second engagement with SGAG, with the same professional portraying a security official, adding that” we have constantly applied a gentle touch to content creators because we believe they know their people well and therefore know how best to help get our information across.”
Given that the SAS or its exco did not find fault with the first, we find the complaint about this second video odd.
The union then asked members of the press to speak with some of the member companies regarding compliance with the progressive wage model and claimed that it was the video’s messaging that struck a nerve with SAS ‘ exco.
It added that it was aware of security organizations ‘ contracts for officers to work the most hours per day under the wage model and that officers who wanted to work less could request unpaid leave.
In this way, the officers ‘ unpaid leave hours are then taken from their wages, which meant that they receive less than the rates set forth in the wage model.
USE also objected to SAS ‘ characterization of overtime exemptions, which are meant to be an  option for businesses to deal with exigencies or urgent situations by allowing businesses to work after the overtime hours specified in the Employment Act.
The security sector previously used such exemptions , as the default for all security agencies given the , manpower shortages , in the industry, and working 95 hours of overtime and beyond was common- something that SAS had also acknowledged.  ,
” To claim that because MOM approved the overtime exemptions , and hence,  , that agencies were’ merely hiring in accordance to the parameters provided by MOM ‘ is disingenuous,” the union said, stressing that such exemptions were removed from January 2021, because of how prevalent the problem was at the time.
The union continued,” USE is pleased that the partnership with SGAG has achieved the exact outcomes we desired: raise awareness of the intentions behind the progressive wage model, and for officers or agencies to report any instances of non-compliance,” the union added.
Hepmil Media Group, the parent company of SGAG, has reached out to TODAY for comment.
SAS responded to USE’s claim that the union” treated the substance of what we have raised and instead attempts to distract by getting into matters that are wholly unrelated to the SGAG video”
The association added that the tripartite partners of the security industry, which include security organizations and the union, have worked together effectively for many years.
SAS told TODAY:” We could be described as a model of tripartism. Although it is unfortunate that this dispute could not be resolved privately, we will continue to be in contact with USE and will continue to try to resolve it amicably.
This article was originally published in , TODAY.