Employer groups have lashed out at proposed changes by Legislative Council members to the relationship between the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) and existing occupational schemes.
The radical measures - which include making employers criminally liable for preventing their employees from making a choice between the schemes - have been branded by the groups as ridiculous.
Some employers claim the Legco demands have gone too far. Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce director Ian Christie said: 'Some of these measures are totally unacceptable to employers.' Employers' Federation executive director May Chow Mee-yee added: 'Many employers do not want to make any more concessions.' The Government, employers and employee representatives have spent several months attempting to define the relationship, or interface, between the schemes containing an estimated 770,000 employees under the Occupational Retirement Scheme Ordinance (Orso) and the proposed MPF, which will be offered to the territory's 2.9 million employees.
Generally, the benefits under Orso are more generous than the compulsory contributions under the MPF.
The present controversy between Legco members and employers has flared because of seven new proposals on the Orso interface. They include: Imposing full and immediate requirements on all Orso schemes seeking MPF exemption to bring the benefits in line with the MPF schemes.
Giving employees an option to choose between Orso and MPF coverage, again upon any change of benefits instead of only upon reduction; and, Employers facing criminal sanctions for preventing their employees from making a free choice between Orso and the MPF.
