Final Report

for

Research on the Feasibility and Implementation

Strategy for “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

in the Hong Kong Construction Industry

Prepared by

Prof. Y. H. Chiang

Prof. Francis K. W. Wong,

Dr. Li Tao, and

Ms. Corrine Wu

Department of Building and Real Estate

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

May 2015

I

Executive Summary (English)

Background During a construction boom as it is now, contractors find it difficult to recruit

workers due to the labour shortage and ageing workforce problem. This problem has

become more serious when the young generation is even more unwilling to work on

construction sites than those before them.

The initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was proposed by the Hong Kong

Construction Association (HKCA) to attract more young blood into the industry and

to improve the work-life balance of construction workers. Prior to the

implementation, possible concerns such as productivity and potential reduction in

income for workers who are remunerated on daily wages or on piece-rated system,

have to be addressed. In-depth investigations and thorough industry-wide

discussions are necessary.

Objectives There are four objectives with this research, including 1) reviewing overseas

practices and implications of adopting No-Saturday or compressed working week

arrangements in the construction industry; 2) seeking views of various stakeholders

regarding the desirability, need and scale of implementing this initiative; 3)

evaluating the implications and feasibility of adopting this initiative; and 4)

formulating strategies (in short, medium and long terms) to address the challenges

and concerns as identified from the findings.

Methods At Stage 1, relevant literature and case studies were reviewed to identify the benefits

and hurdles of implementing the compressed working week arrangements in the

construction industry. At Stage 2, thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted from

August to September 2014 to initially explore the desirability, need, implications

and feasibility of the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” arrangement. The interviewees

included representatives from the government, statutory bodies, property developers,

professional institutions, trade associations, contractors, sub-contractors, and the

young generation. Four focus group meetings were subsequently held from

November to December 2014 to facilitate further discussion among various

II

stakeholders. Based on the findings from literature review, in-depth interviews, and

focus group meetings, three sets of questionnaires were designed respectively for

construction workers, construction trainees, and high-school students to examine

their attitudes, concerns and suggestions regarding the “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

initiative. The questionnaire survey was conducted from January to February 2015.

At Stage 3, a consultation forum involving various industry stakeholders was

conducted on 26 March 2015 to verify the above findings. In addition, Cross

Tabulation Analysis was used to examine the attitudes of questionnaire respondents

and forum participants toward the implementation of this initiative.

Adopting Compressed Working Week Arrangements in the Construction

Industry Overseas The construction industry is known worldwide for its demanding work environment,

with long working hours and project-based nature. Although campaigns have been

launched to reduce weekly working hours by unions worldwide, workers in this

industry usually work more than 60 hours per week, with over six work days and

only one day to take a break. Despite this general situation, some initiatives were

taken to implement alternative working hours in Australia. Based on our extensive

literature search, this is the only place where such initiatives have been documented.

Three projects in Australia had implemented the initiative of

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”. In general, these projects were considered satisfactory in

terms of time and cost performances. The successful implementation of the

compressed work week in this project can be largely attributed to the project

delivery strategy of alliance. Most of the employees (both casual and salaried)

indicated that their WLB (work-life balance) had been moderately improved. Many

employees indicated that this initiative would benefit the productivity, their loyalty

to the organization, and employee retention. Managers and coworkers play a critical

role in promoting the WLB strategies as well as making the initiative feasible and

successful.

Desirability, Need and Scale of Implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” In Hong Kong, among the thirteen interviewees, seven of them regarded the

implementation to be infeasible. Five of them held neutral attitudes. Only one

III

interviewee, who was a part-time construction trainee, considered the

implementation feasible. Among the focus group participants, only the

representatives from the HKCA expressed that the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is

feasible, and the representatives from HKIS believed that the initiative would be

feasible in the long run.

Interestingly, we found that more than half of the questionnaire respondents hoped

to implement this initiative. Almost two thirds of the consultation forum participants

considered this initiative to be feasible. The differences among the survey findings

on attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” can be partly attributed to the

composition of respondents in the survey. For instance, more than half of the

construction workers in the questionnaire survey were salaried ones. Almost all of

the forum participants were professionals or administrative staff. Specifically,

salaried staff, workers in certain trades, workers who planned to stay in the

construction industry, and those who were less satisfied with the overall reward and

payment inclined to have this initiative implemented. Construction trainees studying

certain courses, those who considered the working time too long, and those who

would like to work compressed hours were most likely to agree to implement this

initiative.

Based on the combined findings from the interviews, focus group meetings,

questionnaire survey and consultation forum, it can be concluded, to some extent,

that “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is desirable to construction workers, the young

generation and the society for achieving work-life balance and sustainable

development of the construction industry. However, the feasibility of implementing

it at the current stage and the scale of implementation needs further discussion.

Certain conditions should be satisfied. Concerns of various stakeholders must be

addressed to their satisfaction before implementation.

Feasibility and Implications of Implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” In general, findings from this study reflected that the initiative of

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” may be feasible in the long run, though no consensus is

reached to implement it in the immediate and medium term. The following table

IV

summarizes the various concerns of the different stakeholders:

Stakeholders concerned by

Youn

g ge

nera

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n w

orke

rs

Sub-

cont

ract

ors

Con

tract

ors

Prof

essi

onal

Inst

itutio

ns

Dev

elop

ers

Income reduction

Less working flexibility

Productivity reduction

Higher construction costs

Necessity of working on week-ends

Project cycle issues

Project delays

Prolonged disturbances to the community

Exacerbation of labour shortage

Less housing supply

Physical stress of workers in compressed weeks

Generally, sub-contractors had the most concerns on income and operational issues.

Contractors, probably being initiator of this initiative, seemed not to have as many

concerns as sub-contractors. Other than operational concerns, both professional

institutions and developers had indicated their concerns on potential of less housing

supply due to the implementation of this initiative. In the long run, it might be

feasible to implement this initiative for the benefits of site safety, new recruits,

productivity, noise reduction on Saturdays, work-life balance, and sustainable

development of the construction industry.

Recommendations on Implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the Industry Given the long-term potential benefits of the “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, initially it

can be implemented on a voluntary basis. Government is generally suggested to

implement the initiative through pilot projects. Complementary measures can be

implemented in those pilot projects including: 1) Cooperation among various

V

stakeholders, such as contractors, sub-contractors and workers; 2) More direct

labour employment; 3) Adjusted project schedule and working hours; and 4)

Alternate Saturday-off or half-day-off on Saturdays.

In the medium term, “No-Saturday-Site-Work” can be implemented only during

off-season and as a reward for good performing employees. Alternative project

delivery arrangements, which emphasize the collaborative nature of project alliances,

should be encouraged for implementing the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” initiative. It

will be less difficult to promote the implementation of this initiative if all project

participants (both clients and contractors) agree to share the risks and rewards of the

project. Moreover, alternative remuneration mechanisms should be explored to

eliminate concerns arising from casual workers (including daily-rated, piece-rated

and hourly-rated ones) on maintaining the current level of their “take home pay”. It

was commented that, when measuring the remuneration, emphases should be put on

production and productivity, rather than time spent on site.

In the long term, if the benefits of the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” can be realized, this

initiative may be put forward through collective agreement or legislation. However,

several prerequisites need to be met before taking this step, including no severe

labour shortage problem, consensus being reached among project stakeholders on

compressed working week, and the implications of workers’ wages and project

duration having been taken into account. Furthermore, the working conditions, job

security, career path and overall welfare of construction workers should be improved.

Innovative technologies (e.g. prefabrication and mechanization) should be employed

to improve the productivity of this industry and to reduce the dependence on

labour-intensive methods.

Suggestions on Attracting New Blood to the Industry While implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” might help attract and retain

workforce in the construction industry, respondents of this study also mention

additional measures, and these include: 1) Enhancing the image of the construction

industry; 2) Improving safety, site conditions, and site facilities; 3) Elevating income

and welfare; 4) Prosper career path and promising job security; 5) Adopting

innovative and advanced technologies; 6) Higher degree of working flexibility such

VI

as the choice to work on specific days of the week and length of work hours; and 7)

Wider adoption of skills recognition system among construction workers. With the

above measures, it is anticipated that young people will be more willing to join the

construction industry in future.

All four objectives have been achieved in this study. Better WLB and project

objectives pertaining to time and cost can be achieved simultaneously in the

construction industry according to the literature. The respective attitudes and

concerns of various stakeholders (i.e., construction workers, young generation who

will potentially join the construction industry, contractors, sub-contractors.

developers, government, professional institutions, and statutory bodies) were looked

into through various research methods. No consensus has been reached on

implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the local construction industry in the

immediate term. In a longer term, when consensus can be reached among project

stakeholders, the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” initiative might be feasible to bring

multiple benefits at the project level as well as to promote the sustainable

development of the industry.

VII

Executive Summary (Chinese)

研究背景

香港建造業正處於蓬勃發展的時期，因人手短缺以及工人老化的問題,各承建商

均面臨招工難的處境。較之上一代，年輕一代更不願意加入地盤工作，使得以

上問題愈加嚴重。有鑑於此，香港建造商會提出了「工地星期六休息」的構思

以吸引更多年輕人入行，並希望以此來提升建造業工人工作與生活的平衡度。

在實施該構思之前，需要開展深入的訪談以及全行業範圍的討論以解決可能存

在的生產率降低、日薪制和件工制工人收入減少的問題。

研究目標

這項研究有四個目標，包括：1）通過文獻綜述，研究國外建造業施行星期六休

息或壓縮工作週計劃的做法及啟示；2）就該構思施行的可行性、需求以及規模

聽取各持份者的意見；3）對實施這個構思的可行性以及影響進行評估；以及 4）

制定短期、中期以及長期策略，解決調查過程中出現的有關實施該構思的顧慮

以及挑戰。

研究方法

第一階段主要開展文獻綜述及案例分析，以確定於建造業實施壓縮工作週的益

處及障礙。第二階段開展了 13個深度訪談（2014年 8月到 9月），以初步探索

「工地星期六休息」構思的需求、影響及可行性。受訪者主要來自政府、法定

機構、開發商、專業機構、工會、承包商、分包商以及建造業年輕學員。此外，

為促進各持份者就「工地星期六休息」的構思展開進一步的討論，我們於 2014

年 11月到 12月進行了四輪焦點小組訪談。之後，基於文獻綜述、深度訪談，

以及焦點小組訪談，我們分別為建造工人、建造學員，以及未來可能加入建造

業的中學生設計了三組問卷，以考察他們的態度、顧慮及建議，並於 2015年 1

月到 2月進行了問卷調查。第三階段，為驗證以上調查成果，我們於 2015年 3

月 26日舉行了一場諮詢會，各持份者均被邀請參加。另外，我們使用交叉聯列

表方法對問卷受訪者及諮詢會參與者關於該構思施行的態度進行了分析。

國外建造業採用壓縮工作週的安排

在全球範圍內，建造業都以其嚴苛的工作環境、超長的工作時間及建基於項目

的特性而著稱。雖然工會運動已在全球廣泛開展，以減少每週工作時間，建造

工人每週的工作時間仍然超過 60個小時，每週工作超過六天。基於廣泛的文獻

檢索，我們發現澳洲正在實施一些構思以改變這一局面，澳洲也是唯一有記錄

實施這些構思的國家。

在澳洲，分別有三個項目採用了「工地星期六休息」的工作安排。總的來說，

VIII

這些項目所需的時間及成本皆令人滿意。壓縮工作週在這個項目的成功實施在

很大程度上歸因於聯盟的項目交付戰略。大多數員工（包括臨時員工及月薪制

員工）表示他們的工作與生活的平衡度得到了適度改善。許多員工表示该构思

将有利于提高生產率、提高員工對公司的忠誠度，以及降低員工的流失率。管

理者及同事在促進工作與生活均衡策略推廣方面發揮著至關重要的作用，從而

可令構思變得切實可行並取得成功。

實施「工地星期六休息」構思的需求及規模

在香港，於 13個接受深度訪談的受訪者中，有 7個認為該構思不可行，5個持

中立意見，只有 1個兼讀制的建造學員認為該構思是可行。在焦點小組訪談的

參與者中，只有香港建造商會代表表示該構思是可行的，香港測量師學會代表

認為該構思長遠可行。

有趣的是，我們發現超過一半的問卷受訪者希望實施該構思；幾乎三分之二的

諮詢會參與者認為該構思是可行的。對於該構思態度上的差異在一定程度上可

歸因於各輪調查受訪者的組成。例如，在問卷調查中，超過一半的建造工人是

月薪制工人；在諮詢會參與者中，幾乎所有的參與者都是專業人員或行政人員。

具體來說，月薪制工人、特定工種工人、打算繼續待在建造業的人、不太滿意

現有工作總體回報或收入的人更傾向於施行該構思。同時，特定課程的學員、

認為工作時間太長的人，以及希望施行壓縮工作週的人更希望施行該構思。

綜合以上調查，我們可以在一定程度上得出結論，對於建造工人、年輕一代及

整個社會來說，「工地星期六休息」構思在促進工作與生活均衡及推進建造業可

持續發展方面是可取的。然而在現階段,該構思實施的可行性及實施規模仍待進

一步的商榷。該構思的實施需要滿足一定的條件。各持份者的顧慮仍然有待解

決。

實施「工地星期六休息」構思的可行性及影響

總體來說，該研究發現儘管就近期或中期是否實施「工地星期六休息」構思还

未達成共識，長遠來說該構思應該是可行的。以下表格總結了各持份者對施行

該構思存在的各種顧慮：

各持份者

年輕一

代

建造工

人

分包商

承包商

專業機構

發展商

收入減少

IX

工作彈性降低

生產率降低

建造成本增加

週末工作的必要性

工序問題

項目延期

長時間干擾到社區

加劇人手短缺

住房供應減少

工人體力上無法承受壓縮工作週

總體來說，分包商最關注的是收入及操作問題。承包商似乎沒有分包商那麼多

顧慮，可能因為他們是該構思的發起人。除了操作上的考量，專業機構和發展

商還表達了對實施該構思所導致的較少住房供應這潛在問題的顧慮。長遠來看，

該構思應該是可行的，其益處主要包括地盤安全性、人員招聘、減少週六噪音、

工人工作與生活的均衡度，以及有利於建造業的可持續發展。

實施「工地星期六休息」構思的建議

考慮到長期的潛在益處，該構思最初可以在自願的基礎上實施。建議政府可於

試點項目先行實施該構思。配套措施也應在這些試點項目一併施行，包括：1）

鼓勵各持份者（例如承包商、分包商、建造工人）合作；2）僱用多些直接勞工；

3）調整項目進度及工作時間；及 4）採用長短週或者週六半天工作制。

中期來說，該構思可只在淡季施行，並作為對良好績效員工的獎勵。在施行該

構思的過程中，應鼓勵採用注重項目聯盟性質的其他可替代的項目交付安排。

若項目所有參與者（包括業主及承包商）共同承擔項目的風險與收益，「工地星

期六休息」構思施行將會容易很多。另外，應探索其他薪酬衡量機制，以消除

臨時員工（包括日薪制、件工制及時薪制工人）對於施行「工地星期六休息」

構思後難以維持現有收入水平的顧慮。在衡量薪資的時候，重點應放在產量及

生產率上，而不是待在工地工作時間的長短。

長期來看，若「工地星期六休息」的益處均可以實現的話，可通過集體協議或

立法的方式來推出該構思。在此之前，有幾個前提條件必須滿足，包括解決了

嚴重的勞動力短缺問題、項目中各持份者對於壓縮工作週問題能達到共識、已

計入該構思對工人薪資及項目工期的影響。此外，還應改善建造工人的工作環

境、工作穩定度、職業發展路徑，及總體福利水平。通過技術創新（例如：預

製件技術、機械化）提高生產率、降低建造業對勞動密集型方法的依賴。

X

吸引年輕人加入建造業的建議

施行「工地星期六休息」構思誠然可能可以吸引更多的人加入建造業以及留住

現有的工人，受訪者也提出了一些額外的措施，包括：1）提升建造業的形象；

2）改善工地安全、環境以及設施；3）提高工人的收入及福利水平；4）向建造

工人及打算加入建造業的人展示光明的職業發展路徑及良好的工作保障；5）採

用創新的、先進的技術；6）提供更高的工作靈活性，例如：工人可選擇哪天工

作及工作時間的長短；以及 7）在建造業更廣泛地推行技能認證系統。通過以

上措施，相信未來可以吸引更多的年輕人入行。

至此，該研究的四項目標已全部達成。據文獻綜述，更好的工作與生活均衡目

標與基於時間、成本考量的工程項目目標在建造業可同時實現。我們通過調查

考察了各持份者（包括建造工人、可能加入建造業的年輕人、承建商、分包商、

發展商、政府部門、專業機構，及法定機構）對該構思實施的態度及顧慮。本

地建造業對現在是否施行「工地星期六休息」構思還未達成共識。長遠來說，

該構思應該可於建造項目層面為業界帶來多重益處，以推動建造業的可持續發

展。

Contents

Executive Summary (English) ........................................................................................ I Executive Summary (Chinese) .................................................................................... VII

Part I: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

Part II: Review of overseas practices ............................................................................. 5

1. Compressed working week ................................................................................ 5

2. “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the construction industry ..................................... 8

3. Benefits of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” ............................................................. 11

4. Concerns regarding the implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” ........... 11

Part III: Research framework ....................................................................................... 13

1. Research objectives .......................................................................................... 13

2. Research design ............................................................................................... 13

3. Data collection ................................................................................................. 15

3.1 In-depth interviews ................................................................................. 15

3.2 Focus group meetings ............................................................................ 15

3.3 Questionnaire survey ............................................................................. 16

3.4 Consultation forum ................................................................................ 16

4. Data analysis .................................................................................................... 17

Part IV: Profile of the respondents of the questionnaire surveys ................................. 19

1. Construction workers (Questionnaire I) ........................................................... 19

1.1 Socio-economic characteristics ............................................................. 19

1.2 Employment ............................................................................................ 20

2. Construction trainees (Questionnaire II) .......................................................... 22

3. High-school students (Questionnaire III) ......................................................... 23

Part V: The construction industry in Hong Kong ......................................................... 24

1. Image of the construction industry .................................................................. 24

1.1 General image ........................................................................................ 24

1.2 Major considerations to join or stay in the construction industry ......... 27

1.3 Plan to introduce relatives and friends to the construction industry ..... 30

2. Labour in the construction industry ................................................................. 32

2.1 Direct and indirect labour...................................................................... 32

2.2 Training by CIC and the constraints ...................................................... 33

2.3 Difficulty to recruit workers ................................................................... 33

2.4 Suggestions to attract young labour ...................................................... 35

3. Working time and remuneration of the construction industry ......................... 38

3.1 Working days per week .......................................................................... 38

3.2 Working overtime and its remuneration ................................................. 41

4. Implementing flexible hours and compressed working hours ......................... 44

Part VI: The initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.................................................... 46

1. The feasibility of implementing this initiative ................................................. 46

1.1 Attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” ......................................... 46

1.2 Concerns on the feasibility of implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work”47

1.3 Reasons for hoping to implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work” ................ 48

1.4 Findings from the questionnaire survey and the consultation forum..... 49

2. Factors affecting the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” .................. 53

2.1 Construction workers ............................................................................. 53

2.2 Construction trainees ............................................................................. 54

2.3 High-school students .............................................................................. 60

2.4 Forum participants ................................................................................ 61

3. Suggestions on implementing this initiative .................................................... 61

Part VII: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 64

1. Dilemma between labour shortage, the nature of construction industry and work-life balance ................................................................................................. 64

2. Overseas practices and implications ................................................................ 64

3. Benefits of “No Saturday Site Work” .............................................................. 65

4. Concerns on implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” .................................... 66

4.1 Concerns on the timing of implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work”..... 66

4.2 Concerns on the opposition by casual workers ..................................... 67

4.3 Concerns on implementing compressed working week .......................... 67

4.4 Concerns on the requirements of certain trades .................................... 67

5. Suggestions on how to attract young people to the construction industry ....... 68

5.1 Willingness of “Generation Y” to join the industry ............................... 68

5.2 Measures to attract young people .......................................................... 69

Part VIII: Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................... 71

1. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 71

1.1 Desirability of implementing “No Saturday Site Work” ........................ 71

1.2 Feasibility of adopting “No Saturday Site Work” ................................. 72

2. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 72

2.1 Short-term strategies .............................................................................. 73

2.2 Medium-term strategies ......................................................................... 73

2.3 Long-term strategies .............................................................................. 74

Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................... 76

References .................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix 1: List of the interviews ............................................................................... 84

Appendix 2: Summary table of interviews .................................................................. 87

Appendix 3: Interview record with Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union .............................................................................................................. 99

Appendix 4: Interview record with Development Bureau ......................................... 101

Appendix 5: Interview record with Construction Industry Council (Training and Development) ............................................................................................................. 103

Appendix 6: Interview record with HKIA ................................................................. 106

Appendix 7: Interview record with Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors Association ................................................................................................................. 108

Appendix 8: Interview record with Hong Kong Federation of Electrical and Mechanical Contractors ............................................................................................. 111

Appendix 9: Interview record with Federation of Hong Kong Electrical & Mechanical Industries Trade Unions ......................................................................... 115

Appendix 10: Interview record with HKIE ............................................................... 118

Appendix 11: Interview record with MTR Corporation ............................................ 120

Appendix 12: Interview record with young generation (Part-time student, CIC Training Center) ......................................................................................................... 123

Appendix 13: Interview record with young generation (Full-time student, CIC Training Center) ......................................................................................................... 125

Appendix 14: Interview record with REDA .............................................................. 127

Appendix 15: Interview record with Construction Industry Council (Research) ...... 129

Appendix 16: Focus group meeting with Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors Association (HKCSA) ............................................................................................... 131

Appendix 17: Focus group meeting with a construction trade works’ union ............ 140

Appendix 18: Focus group meeting with Hong Kong Construction Association (HKCA) ...................................................................................................................... 147

Appendix 19: Focus group meeting with Professional Institutions, Government & Developers ................................................................................................................. 156

Appendix 20: Questionnaire survey with construction workers ................................ 163

Appendix 21: Questionnaire survey with construction trainees ................................ 167

Appendix 22: Questionnaire survey with high-school students ................................ 171

Appendix 23: Feedback form for the consultation forum (English Version) ............. 173

Appendix 24: Feedback form for the consultation forum (Chinese Version) ............ 176

Appendix 25: Notes of the consultation forum .......................................................... 178

Appendix 26: List of project meetings ....................................................................... 181

List of Figures Fig. 1. Research design ................................................................................................ 14 Fig. 2. Position of the forum participants .................................................................... 17 Fig. 3. Age of the forum participants ........................................................................... 18 Fig. 4. Working experience of the forum participants (Unit: years) ............................ 18 Fig. 5. Age of the construction workers (Questionnaire I) .......................................... 19 Fig. 6. Income of the construction workers (Questionnaire I) ..................................... 19 Fig. 7. Years of working in the construction industry (Questionnaire I) ..................... 20 Fig. 8. Age of the construction trainees (Questionnaire II) .......................................... 23 Fig. 9. Age of the high-school students (Questionnaire III) ........................................ 23 Fig. 10. Age distribution of the registered workers (by 31 December 2014) .............. 25 Fig. 11. Satisfaction with the overall reward (Questionnaire I) ................................... 43 Fig. 12. Satisfaction with the payment (Questionnaire I) ............................................ 43 Fig. 13. Satisfaction with the welfare (Questionnaire I) .............................................. 44 Fig. 14. Satisfaction with the career development (Questionnaire I) .......................... 44

List of Tables

Table 1. Trade of the construction workers .................................................................. 21 Table 2. Job levels of the construction workers ........................................................... 21 Table 3. Training courses (Questionnaire II) ............................................................... 22 Table 4. Age distribution of the registered workers (by 31 December 2014) .............. 25 Table 5. Reasons for taking construction training courses........................................... 28 Table 6. Reasons for staying in the construction industry (construction trainees) ...... 28 Table 7. Reasons for not sure about staying in this industry (construction trainees) ... 29 Table 8. Reasons for joining the construction industry (high-school students) ........... 29 Table 9. Reasons for not joining the construction industry (high-school students) ..... 30 Table 10. Reasons for not sure about joining this industry (high-school students) ..... 30 Table 11. Reasons for introducing relatives and friends (construction trainees) ......... 31 Table 12. Reasons for not introducing relatives and friends (construction trainees) ... 31 Table 13. Combined suggestions on attracting young labour (Interviews & focus group meetings) ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 14. Suggestions to attract young labour (Questionnaire I, II and III) ................ 37 Table 15. Measures to attract young labour (Forum) ................................................... 38 Table 16. Number of working days per week of different trades (Questionnaire I) .... 40 Table 17. Percentage of construction workers working on Saturdays in different trades (Questionnaire I) ................................................................................................ 41 Table 18. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Interviews & focus group meetings) .............................................................................................. 46 Table 19. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Questionnaire survey) ................................................................................................. 50 Table 20. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Forum) ... 51 Table 21. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (construction workers) ... 55 Table 22. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (construction trainees).... 58 Table 23. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (high-school students) .... 60

1

Part I: Introduction

The construction industry has been known for its cyclical nature of work, and keen

market competition. Contractors are often required to complete construction works

within a tight schedule, or whatever time is left of an already delayed design process.

Consequently, construction works are routinely carried out over long hours to

complete on time. Construction firms generally do not have much bargaining power

over their clients. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are often “bullied” into

accepting an unrealistic work schedule.

During a construction boom as it is now, contractors find it difficult to recruit

workers, now that we have an acute labour shortage and ageing problem. This

problem has become more serious when the young generation is more unwilling to

work on sites than those before them. They are the so called “Generation Y”: being

generally more educated and thus aspiring for getting more job satisfaction from

their work. They find the long and unsocial hours of working in a construction site

very unappealing.

Given the nature of construction industry and the current labour shortage and ageing

problem, contractors may not welcome the compressed work week in the short run.

They would rather maximize the utility of their workforce in order to complete the

construction work on time. However, the long working hours and working at

non-standard times (e.g., in the evening, at night or during weekends) may cause the

following problems:

1) Adverse impacts on productivity. Workers allocated to weekend shifts may not

work hard because they would feel dissatisfied knowing that meanwhile their

friends are enjoying leisure time (Bryson and Forth, 2007). Productivity and

work performance were found to decline with longer weekly hours (Kodz et al.,

2003). According to an analysis of 18 OECD member countries by Cette et al.

(2011), it was found that when annual working time exceeded the threshold of

1,925 hours, every one percent increase of working time may lead to a decrease

of productivity by 0.9%, and by 1% if the working time exceeded the threshold

of 2,025 hours per year. Regarding the construction industry, Hanna et al. (2005)

2

has similar findings that productivity decreases significantly as the number of

working hours or project duration increases.

2) Adverse impacts on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, performance,

and the ability to attract new recruits. The problem has become more serious

when there are already shortage and ageing problems of construction workers.

Working long and “un-social” hours are not conducive to recruitment of young

people who are in general more educated than before, and have more career

choices open to them.

3) Adverse impacts on safety. Fleming et al. (2006) found that in the US

employees working 5 days a week have lower injury frequency rates than those

working more, and Australian construction workers are more likely to be killed

at work than any other industry. Long hours of work have often led to fatigue,

which was regarded by respondents of a questionnaire survey as the most

critical factor resulting in accidents in oil and gas construction (Chan, 2011).

Further, according to an exploratory study by Loughborough University (Gibb

et al., n.d.), older workers were “perceived to have more relaxed attitude” to

health and safety issues, though a survey of Hong Kong workers found the

opposite that “older workers exhibit more positive attitudes towards safety”

(OSHC, 2000). The reduction of site accidents was also regarded as a means to

attract new recruits (The Alberta Government, 2007).

4) Anxiety, burnout, job stress and poor and deteriorating health (Francis and

Lingard, 2004). In Australia, among the most stressed are head chefs and

construction workers. Construction workers are feeling stressed because their

skills are not readily transferable to other industries. Their suicide mortality rates

are approximately 75% higher than the overall average of male workers

(MacKenzie, 2008). The male dominance of the industry does not help when the

culture is keeping the feelings to oneself (Turner and Lingard, 2009). In the US,

the risks of physical health increase due to long working hours (Dembe et al.,

2008). In Canada, employees working over weekends and on non-standard

workshifts reported higher “emotional exhaustion, job stress and psychosomatic

health problems” than employees not involved with weekend work or on fixed

3

day shift only (Jamal, 2004). In Europe, negative effects of both long working

hours and working unsocial hours on work-related health outcomes are widely

reported, for instance, by Burchell et al. (2007) and Parent-Thirion et al. (2007).

5) Adverse impacts on Work-life balance. Work-life balance (WLB) is a term that

has emerged over the past twenty years as a human resource management (HRM)

strategy. Besides paid work, care work, and family responsibilities, recreation is

greatly emphasized (Ransome, 2007). Brown et al. (2010) contends that WLB

policies and working time arrangements are key components in meeting the

balance between work and non-work life. Long working hours and weekend work

can contribute to work-life imbalance/conflict, such as the absence of recreation

and social activities, less time for sleeping and personal care, and insufficient

time for family life. As Townsend et al. (2012) comment, “extended working

hours and the difficulty of balancing home and work are problematic for many

employees”, and “the number of hours an employee works is a centrally

important part of the WLB (work life balance) rhetoric”. Wharton and Blair-Loy

(2006) also report a clear inversely proportional relationship between working

hours and work life balance. Long hours (especially when combined with tight

deadlines) have raised workers’ increasing concerns that their family life has been

adversely compromised by their long hours of construction work. Work is more

damaging to family life than vice versa. There is a close link between long,

atypical and Saturday working hours and “family disintegration” (Shepanski et al.,

2007). In addition, working on Saturday and Sunday shifts also have negative

effects on WLB, and the lost personal time often cannot be made up during the

week (Bittman, 2005; Brown et al., 2010).

It is a dilemma that the labour shortage and ageing problem, as well as the nature of

construction industry, makes contractors prefer 6 days’ work week, with long hours

each day, in order to complete the construction on time. On the other hand, the long

hours of construction work makes the labor shortage and ageing problem even more

serious. It is more difficult to attract new recruits, especially the young generation.

While the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was proposed by the Hong Kong

Construction Association (HKCA) to attract more young blood into the industry and

to improve the work-life balance of construction workers, possible concerns such as

4

productivity and potential reduction in income for workers who are remunerated on

daily wages or on piece-rated system, have to be addressed.

5

Part II: Review of overseas practices

1. Compressed working week The tradition of five-day work week is rooted in industrial history. In the early days,

six-day work week was widely employed in Europe. Consequent to economic

development, campaigns by trade unions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as

well as initiatives by employers such as Henry Ford, the length of the working week

was shortened to decrease the unemployment rate and to improve working

conditions. Saturday became a day of rest besides Sunday (Bryson and Forth, 2007).

However, since the 1980s, the incidence of overtime work and working at

non-standard times have increased not only in the UK but also in the US, Australia

and many other countries (Campbell, 2002; Roberts, 2007). It can be attributed to

the increasing competitive pressures, and the relaxation of relevant restrictions (e.g.,

restrictions on Sunday trading in the 1990s in the UK). There are two categories of

public policies concerning working time, namely, 1) national standards and

regulations (e.g., employment legislation in the UK), and 2) policies aiming to foster

and spread best practices based on initiatives that are implemented by individual

companies and managers (e.g., the US, Canada, and Australia). The national

standards and regulations can be further divided into two sub-categories, namely, 1)

limits on working hours, and 2) the rights to request or refuse certain working

schedules.

For decades, the regulation of working time has been prominent on policy agendas

in the EU, both at the supranational and national levels (Gornick and Heron, 2006).

Since the end of the 1970s, a wave of statutory or collectively agreed working-time

reductions has been launched in several Western European countries, including

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, the UK, and France. In the 1990s, the

EU promulgated two Directives, i.e., the 1993 Directive on working time and the

1997 Directive on part-time work. In the 1980s, the emphasis of the initiatives of

working time reduction in Europe was put on decreasing unemployment. In the

1990s, the emphasis was changed. Health and safety became the focus (Gornick and

Heron, 2006).

Both in France and Italy, legislation has played a critical role in establishing

work-time norms and institutionalized bargaining. The emphasis of work-time

6

regulation has long been put on reducing working time. The 8-hour day and 48-hour

week was legislated in 1919. Afterwards, the working time has continuously been

reduced, down to the most recent 35-hour week via the Aubry Laws of 1998 and

2000. The aim of the earlier reductions was to improve the quality of life, while the

most recent reductions were motivated by employment generation and productivity

benefits. Through regulating the use of part-time work, shift work and overtime

working, French regulations limited work-time flexibility up to the 1980s.

Afterwards, it was relaxed progressively when faced with the increasingly intense

international competition of companies (Gregory and Milner, 2009).

In contrast, the UK is characterized with a laisser-faire system of regulation, i.e.,

with limited state intervention. Trade unions used to play a key role in the UK in

introducing and implementing WLB measures and in reducing working time, whilst

the UK government had traditionally resisted relevant legislation. With the

increasing casualization of labour (Green and May, 2003), more and more

construction workers have become “self-employed”, hence losing their collective

bargaining power with their employers. In the end, they have usually worked very

long hours every week, with an upper ceiling of 60 or even 65 hours per week.

Moreover, there was a relatively high incidence of overtime work and female

part-time work (Walby and Olsen, 2002). It was not until the late 1990s, under the

influence of EU law, limits were set to reduce working time in the UK to promote a

parent-friendly discourse and to compensate for the loss of trade union protection

and bargaining (Gregory and Milner, 2009). However, the aforementioned limits are

still strongly constrained by employer objections based on business concerns.

Regarding the situation in Asia, in Japan, the number of annual working hours has

decreased in the past two decades, although the absolute number is still larger than

that of the EU countries. In the 1990s, the legal working time in Japan was gradually

reduced through the law, to 40 hours per week. The aim was to improve the quality

of life. The aim of working time reduction has however changed in the last two

decades. The reduction was aimed at reducing unemployment via work-sharing

when Japan went through her economic recession during the “lost decades”

(Gornick and Heron, 2006).

7

In Singapore, although a Committee on Work-Life Strategy was set up to solve the

work-life conflict problem in 2000, the strategies adopted by the government are

underpinned by the logic of the neoliberal capitalism. The responsibilities of

implementation are in practice relied upon individuals and communities (Lim, 2010).

According to The Employment Act in Singapore, the officially maximum working

hours is capped at 44 per week, with overtime payment for work beyond the

maximum. However, the average working hours per week hit 46.3 in 2008. In the

construction industry, it was 60 working hours per week, ranking the highest among

all industries, according to the Department of Statistics, Singapore (Lim, 2010).

Working time arrangements pertaining to WLB usually include two dimensions,

namely, the volume of hours worked, and the flexibility of hours worked (Fagan et

al., 2011). Flexible work arrangements include compressed work weeks, shorter

working time with lower pay, adjusted starting and finishing times, fewer breaks to

make the working day shorter, option of half day vacations, and flexibility to

accommodate workers’ needs on specific days (Lingard, 2000). Flexible work

schedules help employees better coordinate their work and non-work life, thus

increasing their on-the-job performance and benefiting labour productivity (Golden,

2011). Workers are able to make choices influencing when, where, and for how long

they are engaged in work-related tasks (Hill et al., 2008).

According to the long term evolution of working time and pay in industrialized

countries, it is possible to achieve working time reduction and pay increase

simultaneously. The most important factors contributing to the more intensive use of

working time are scientific management and the mechanization of production

(Bosch and Lehndorff, 2001). The work process can be divided into standardized

tasks with an exact time allotted to each task. Mechanization of production gives

employers control over work rates. Bosch and Lehndorff (2001) also contended that

reduction in working time has been an important factor in economic growth over the

last 100 years. It stimulates employers to innovate and to introduce new forms of

work organization.

Compressed work week is found to be able to improve the WLB of shift workers

(Bambra et al., 2008). It is positively related to job satisfaction and satisfaction with

8

the work schedule, but unrelated to absenteeism and productivity (Baltes et al.,

1999). However, given the same number of working hours, a higher level of

working flexibility was found to have a positive impact on job commitment and job

productivity by Eaton (2003).

2. “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the construction industry Although campaigns have long been launched to reduce weekly working hours by

unions worldwide, the construction industry does not seem to have been affected.

The construction industry is known worldwide for its demanding work environment,

with long working hours and project-based nature. Employees in this industry

usually work more than 60 hours per week, with over six work days and only one

day to take a break (Brown et al., 2010). It is difficult for workers engaged in this

industry to achieve WLB.

In Australia, six working days per week is normal for most construction sites

(Townsend et al., 2006). The construction industry is characterized by “long hours

and weekend work, especially among site-based employees” (Lingard et al., 2007).

The average number of working hours was 62.5 per week among site-based project

staff, 56.1 among office-based project staff, and 49.0 among head or regional office

staff (Lingard and Francis, 2004; Lingard et al., 2007). The long working hours have

been attributed to the nation’s failing to produce effective working time regulations

(Van Wanrooy and Wilson, 2006), and, perhaps similar to the case of the UK, the

marginalized role of trade unions in introducing and implementing WLB (Gregory

and Milner, 2009). Despite this general situation, some initiatives were taken to

implement alternative working hours in Australia.

Case 1: Wivenhoe Dam The initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was implemented in a large infrastructure

project (i.e., upgrading the existing Wivenhoe Dam) in Queensland, Australia. This

project was commenced in April 2004. It was an alliance project undertaken by

several major construction firms (Brown et al., 2010). Four models were

implemented in four construction sites respectively:

9

1) Salaried staff and casual staff were treated differently. Salaried staff was only

required to work on one Saturday every month, based on work shift. Casual staff

had the option to choose if they would like to work on Saturdays. However, most

casual workers chose to work on Saturdays for the money.

2) The industry standard of six-day working week was replaced by five-day

working week, with an extra hour added to each working day.

3) Employees were allowed to change to work five days per week upon their

personal needs, and without affecting colleagues and the project schedule.

4) Employees began to work 30 minutes earlier every morning, and worked on one

Saturday every month. If the employee worked on a Saturday, they would have a

rostered day off on the previous Monday. Hence, it is still five-day working

week.

After implementing the compressed work week, most of the employees (both casual

and salaried) indicated that their WLB had been moderately improved. They could

spend more time with family and on other non-work activities. The majority of them

expressed strong preferences for the 5-day work week. Many employees indicated

that this initiative would benefit the productivity, their loyalty to the organization,

and employee retention. However, concerns were raised from the casual employees

on potential decrease of their “take home pay” (Lingard et al., 2007). In contrast, the

site-based workers expressed dissatisfaction with working weekends, and reported

that their non-work life had been negatively affected by the six-day work week.

The project was very successful. It was completed on September 22, 2005, six

months ahead of the scheduled completion date, and cost less than originally

estimated. The successful implementation of the compressed work week in this

project can be largely attributed to the project delivery strategy of alliance. Project

alliancing is different from traditional partnering that besides price, the ability to

innovate and manage relationships within and between alliance participants is also

emphasized. In projects that employ this delivery strategy, participants are selected

10

before a price is considered. They jointly share the risks and rewards arising from

the project (Walker et al., 2002).

The success of this project indicates that better WLB and project objectives

pertaining to time and cost can be achieved simultaneously in the construction

industry. Moreover, WLB initiatives can even improve both individual and

organizational effectiveness in the construction industry.

Case 2: National Museum of Australia In the Wivenhoe Dam project, the work week was compressed to achieve better

WLB for site employees. However, there was still concern among casual workers on

potential reduction of their “take home pay”. Hence, besides employing project

alliancing, the National Museum of Australia adopted the performance-based

remuneration mechanism instead of the traditional time-based one (Hauck et al.,

2004). The traditional site allowance payment was replaced with a sliding scale

payment based upon productivity achievement. The productivity achievement was

assessed by an independent panel on the basis of benchmark measures (established

by the Monitoring Committee). This project was very successful. In March 2001, the

National Museum of Australia opened on time and final cost was below budget.

Case 3: A medium-sized construction contracting organization Another case study of implementing work-life strategies was conducted in two

commercial building projects. One was a small civil engineering project and the

other corporate office work in Melbourne between October 2009 and December

2010 (Lingard et al., 2012). Both salaried and casual workers were included in the

study. Three kinds of work-life strategies were implemented, including: 1) the

clarification of the rostered day off (RDO) policy for project-based salaried staff; 2)

leadership sessions for managers to support workers’ work-life balance, e.g.,

encouraging workers to leave work at a reasonable hour; and 3) policy to encourage

workers to take a break before commencing an intense work period. This case study

reveals a strong negative effect of long weekly working time on WLB. After the

implementation of the three strategies, the work-life conflict of the workers

decreased somewhat though not to a statistically significant extent. The barriers of

implementing the work-life strategies included: 1) the culture of long working hours

11

in the construction industry (e.g., workers did not feel comfortable leaving early);

and 2) the managers announced these strategies within the organization in an

informal manner, which brought uncertainties to the workers about the employment

of these strategies by the organization. The lesson learnt is that managers and

coworkers play a critical role in promoting the strategies. They have to be engaged

to make initiatives successful.

3. Benefits of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” As elaborated in above sections, WLB initiatives alleviate the conflict between work

and personal life of employees. The implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

can also benefit employers. Having two consequent non-working days during the

weekend, construction workers feel more refreshed (both mentally and physically),

and can obtain higher levels of work-life balance. They can spend more time with

the family and on personal hobbies/entertainment, which in turn increases their

commitment to the organizations and decreases their turnover intentions (Grover and

Crooker, 1995; Francis, 2003). Larger and better labour force can be attracted and

retained in the construction industry. On the other hand, human resources are one

major competitive strategy (Lingard et al., 2007). Employees tend to perform better

when they are motivated, according to management theorists such as Pfeffer (1998).

Balanced work and non-work lives can generally bring along higher productivity.

4. Concerns regarding the implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” When implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, there are always

doubts and reservations among both employers and employees. Five issues must be

taken into consideration to drive the initiative:

1) Casual and salaried workers are paid in different patterns. Salaried ones (e.g.,

professionals, site managers, and supervisory staff) are usually paid with a

steady monthly salary, while casual ones (e.g., building trade worker and

unskilled labour) are paid on daily or sometimes piecemeal basis, and for

overtime work. If the initiative is implemented, casual workers’ “take-home pay”

may decrease.

2) To maintain productivity and to meet the project deadline, compressed working

week can be employed. However, in winter time, there is concern of insufficient

12

daylight. Another concern is on the adversarial effects of long working hours on

health and safety of construction workers.

3) Because the construction production process involves different stakeholders to

accommodate each other, interactions, communications and coordination are

required among construction-site and office workers, and among casual and

salaried workers. Such interaction necessitates working on Saturdays.

4) The type and length of shifts are far more likely to cause risks than the length of

weekly working hours (Wilkins, 2005). It should be paid with more attention.

5) Simply reducing working hours does not necessarily improve the WLB. Instead,

longer recreation time (e.g., Saturday off or not) may improve the WLB better

(Fagnani and Letablier, 2004).

Accordingly, eight hypotheses are put forward in this research as follows:

H1: Salaried workers and casual workers have significantly different attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H2: Construction workers of various trades have significantly different attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H3: The plan to join or stay in the construction industry significantly affects the

attitudes toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H4: The evaluation of the current working hours significantly affects the attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H5: The degree of satisfaction with the current job significantly affects the attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H6: The willingness to implement compressed working hours significantly affects

the attitudes toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H7: The job nature significantly affects the attitudes toward implementing the

initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

H8: The job position significantly affects the attitudes toward implementing the

initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

13

Part III: Research framework

1. Research objectives There are four objectives with this research, including:

1) Reviewing overseas practices and implications;

2) Seeking views of various stakeholders regarding the desirability, need and scale

of implementing this initiative, and exploring the rationales underlying the

corresponding desirability;

3) Evaluating the implications and feasibility of adopting this initiative; and

4) Formulating strategies to address the challenges and concerns as identified from

the findings.

2. Research design This research project was undertaken in three stages, namely, 1) review of overseas

practices and implications, 2) evaluation of the desirability and feasibility of

implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the local construction industry, and 3)

proposing strategies to address the challenges and concerns.

Stage 1: Review of overseas practices & implications

In this stage, a comprehensive literature review was conducted on overseas practices

and implications of adopting No-Saturday or compressed working week

arrangements in the construction industry. The benefits and constraints of

implementing the No-Saturday or compressed working week arrangements were

analyzed, to achieve Objective 1.

Stage 2: Evaluation of the desirability and feasibility of implementing

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”

To achieve Objective 2 and 3, literature review, in-depth interviews, focus group

meetings, questionnaire survey and case studies were employed in the five tasks in

this stage, namely:

1) Investigating the current working hours and practices of construction workers in

Hong Kong;

2) Seeking views of the various stakeholders in the local construction industry

regarding the desirability, need and scale of implementing this initiative, and

identifying their concerns and suggestions;

14

3) Exploring the potential impacts on workers’ income;

4) Exploring the potential influences on project delivery in the various sub-sectors

of the local construction industry, e.g., private and public sectors, building,

infrastructure, and RMAA (i.e. repair, maintenance, minor alteration, and

addition) sectors; and

5) Assessing the social impacts due to the potential deferred delivery.

Stage 3: Proposing strategies to address the challenges and concerns

Based on the findings derived in Stages 1 and 2, both qualitative and quantitative

analyses were conducted. Strategies (in short, medium and long terms) to address

the challenges and concerns for implementing the “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

initiative were proposed.

A consultation forum was conducted to review the above proposed strategies. A

feedback form was designed to collect the views of the participants concerning the

initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” and suggestions to soothe the problem of

labour shortage in the local construction industry. Please refer to Appendix 23 & 24

for the samples of the feedback form (English version & Chinese version) and

Appendix 25 for the notes of the consultation forum.

Fig. 1. Research design

Stage 1

(Objective 1):

- Literature review

Stage 2

(Objectives 2 & 3):

- In-depth interviews

- Focus group meetings

- Questionnaire survey

- Case study

- Data analysis

Stage 3

(Objective 4):

- Consultation Forum

- Report drafting

15

3. Data collection 3.1 In-depth interviews

As a pilot study, thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted from August to

September 2014. The questions were composed of two parts, namely, general

questions and specific questions. Specific questions were designed for various

stakeholders. General questions were common to all stakeholders, and used for

comparisons between them. The aim of the interviews was to seek interviewees’

understanding of this industry and the workers (e.g., working time, labour

recruitment, payment, image of the industry, and peculiarities of this industry), and

to initially evaluate the desirability and feasibility (e.g., general attitudes of various

stakeholders, concerns and suggestions) of implementing the initiative of

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the local construction industry.

The interviewees include representatives from the government (i.e., Development

Bureau), statutory bodies (i.e., Construction Industry Council, and MTR

Corporation), property developers (i.e., Real Estate Developers Association),

professional institutions (i.e., the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, and the Hong

Kong Institution of Engineers), trade associations (i.e., Hong Kong Construction

Industry Employees General Union, and Federation of Hong Kong Electrical &

Mechanical Industries Trade Unions), contractors (i.e., Hong Kong Federation of

Electrical & Mechanical Industries Trade Unions), sub-contractors (i.e., Hong Kong

Construction Sub-Contractors Association), and the young generation (i.e., one

part-time student and one full-time student from the CIC Training Center). Please

refer to Appendices 1 to 15 for the details of the thirteen interviews.

3.2 Focus group meetings

Four focus group meetings were held from November to December 2014. The aim

was to facilitate further discussion among representatives of different stakeholders,

to verify the preliminary findings from the literature review and the in-depth

interviews, and to explore the specific concerns of different trades on implementing

this initiative. The four focus group meetings were conducted in Chinese. Each

lasted for 60 to 90 minutes. The facilitator (s) introduced the background of this

project and presented the preliminary findings first, and then invited the participants

to give comments and supplements accordingly.

16

The participants include construction sub-contractors (i.e., representatives from the

Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors Association), contractors (i.e.,

representatives from the Hong Kong Construction Association), construction

workers (i.e., representatives from a trade union), the government (i.e.,

representative from the Development Bureau of HKSAR), professional institutions

(i.e., representatives from HKIE, HKIS and CIOB), and property developer (i.e.,

representative from REDA). Please refer to Appendices 16 to 19 for details.

3.3 Questionnaire survey

Based on the literature review and results of the preliminary survey (i.e., in-depth

interview and focus group meetings), three sets of questionnaires were designed

respectively for construction workers (i.e. Questionnaire I), construction trainees (i.e.

Questionnaire II), and high-school students (i.e. Questionnaire III) who may

potentially join the local construction industry in future. Please refer to Appendices

20 to 22 for details. The aim was to obtain the socio-demographic profile of the

respondents, and to investigate their employment status, working time, working

satisfaction and career development plan. Most importantly, their attitudes, concerns

and suggestions regarding the implementation of this initiative could be obtained.

Comparisons were made accordingly.

The questionnaire survey was conducted from January to February 2015.

Questionnaire I was distributed randomly to 400 construction workers of different

trades with 165 questionnaires received. Questionnaire II was distributed randomly

to 400 construction trainees majoring in different courses in the CIC Training Center

with 363 questionnaires received. Questionnaire III was distributed randomly to 400

high-school students in five high schools with 255 questionnaires received.

3.4 Consultation forum

A consultation forum was conducted on 26 March 2015 in PolyU campus to verify

the findings from the in-depth interviews and focus group meetings. There were 81

participants in the forum. Altogether 77 sets of feedback forms were received with

40% of the respondents from construction companies, 29% from consultancy

companies, 16% from development companies, 12% from the public sector, and the

remaining 3% from other institutions (e.g. university). Please refer to Appendices 23

17

to 24 for the feedback forms. Regarding their job levels, 35% of them were AES1,

followed by managers2

(21%), administrative staff (16%), site supervisors (13%),

assistant AES (13%), and senior managers (2%) (Fig. 2). The majority, 70%, of them

were male. On average, they were 35 years old (Median: 30) with 12 years’ relevant

working experience (Median: 6) (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).

4. Data analysis To test the eight hypotheses concerning whether respondents with various

demographic characteristics, different working plans and working conditions hold

different attitudes toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”,

Cross Tabulation Analysis was used to test the interdependence among the

nominal/categorical variables such as the type of workers (salaried v.s. casual), the

type of trade, and whether to join or stay in this industry, etc. The findings are

reported in Part VI.

Fig. 2. Position of the forum participants

1 AES refer to Architects, Engineers and Surveyors. 2 Managers: Assistant Mangers, Deputy Managers, and Managers were included

into this category.

18

Fig. 3. Age of the forum participants

Fig. 4. Working experience of the forum participants (Unit: years)

19

Part IV: Profile of the respondents of the questionnaire surveys

1. Construction workers (Questionnaire I) 1.1 Socio-economic characteristics

The majority, 88.4%, of the construction workers respondents were male. The

average age of the respondents was 40 with the youngest at 19 and the oldest at 67.

About 40% of them were between 30 and 50 years old, with the remaining 60%

equally split between those younger than 30 and older than 50. The majority of the

respondents belonged to both the younger and older groups: between 20 and 30

years old, and between 50 and 60 years old (Fig. 5). Their average income was HKD

23,430 per month (Median: 20,000) with the lowest at HKD 9,000 per month and

the highest at HKD 55,000 per month. The majority of them earned HKD 10,000 to

30,000 per month (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5. Age of the construction workers (Questionnaire I)

Fig. 6. Income of the construction workers (Questionnaire I)

20

Among the survey respondents, casual workers and site workers were generally

slightly older than salaried workers and office workers respectively. The former

group earned slightly more than the latter. The average age of salaried workers

respondents was 39 years old, while it was 42 for casual workers respondents.

Salaried workers respondents earned HKD 22,899 per month, while casual workers

respondents earned HKD 23,985 per month. The average ages of site workers

respondents and office workers respondents were 41 and 36 respectively. On

average, site workers respondents earned HKD 23,488 per month, and office

workers respondents earned HKD 22,792 per month.

1.2 Employment

Among the respondents, 53% of them were salaried workers (casual workers: 47%),

92% of them were working on construction sites and the remaining working indoors,

and 10% of them were working for two or more employers at the same time. On

average, they had been working in the construction industry for about 12 years

(Median: 8 years) with the shortest at 4 months and the longest at 40 years. The

majority of them had stayed in this industry for less than 10 years (Fig. 7). The

trades that they were engaged in were various, e.g., E&M, brick-laying,

reinforcement fixing, concreting, safety, prestressing and painting, etc. (Table 1).

Their job levels were different as well, e.g., skilled workers, semi-skilled workers,

technician, labourer, clerks and supervisor, etc. Please refer to Table 2 for the

respective proportions.

Fig. 7. Years of working in the construction industry (Questionnaire I)

21

Table 1. Trade of the construction workers

Trade Frequency Percent

E&M 37 22.1%

Labourer 21 12.9%

Brick-laying 20 12.3%

Clerks 13 7.4%

Reinforcement fixing 9 5.5%

Concreting 7 4.3%

Safety 7 4.3%

Prestressing 5 3.1%

Painting 4 2.5%

Welding 4 2.5%

Decoration 3 1.8%

Scaffolding 2 1.2%

Formwork erection 2 1.2%

Levelling 2 1.2%

Pipelaying 2 1.2%

Carpentry 1 0.6%

Maintenance 1 0.6%

Others 25 15.3%

Total 165 100%

Table 2. Job levels of the construction workers

Job levels Frequency Percent

Skilled worker 33 19.8%

Technician 25 14.8%

Semi-skilled worker 22 13.6%

Labourer 19 11.7%

Clerks 9 5.6%

Officer 3 1.9%

Supervisor 1 0.6%

Others 53 32.1%

Total 165 100%

22

2. Construction trainees (Questionnaire II) The majority of the construction trainees respondents (96%) were male. On average,

they were 27 years old with the youngest at 15 years old and the oldest at 57 years

old (Fig. 8). They received their training in various trades including reinforcement

fixing, plumbing & pipe-fitting, and carpentry & joinery (Table 3). Their reasons for

taking these training courses include: 1) to learn a craft (60%), 2) high income in the

construction industry (52%), 3) recommended by friends (15%), 4) to know more

about the construction industry (2%), 5) prosperous industry & good career path

(2%), 6) to find a job and make a living (2%), 7) a stable job (0.6%), and 8) to

receive allowances by taking these courses (0.3%). Table 3. Training courses (Questionnaire II)

Training Courses Frequency Percent

Bricklaying 40 11.1%

Painting 38 10.5%

Carpentry & Joinery 37 10.0%

Leveling 31 8.6%

Construction Formwork 29 7.8%

Machinery 24 6.6%

Plumbing & Pipe-fitting 20 5.5%

Reinforcement fixing 19 5.3%

Scaffolding Works 19 5.3%

Maintenance 19 5.3%

Welding 16 4.4%

Others 14 3.9%

Civil Engineering Supervision 13 3.6%

Metal works 10 2.8%

Surveying 9 2.5%

Quantity Measurement 8 2.2%

Safety Officer Course 7 1.9%

Marble Laying 5 1.4%

Concreting 3 0.8%

Clerks 1 0.3%

Labourer 1 0.3%

Total 363 100%

23

Fig. 8. Age of the construction trainees (Questionnaire II)

The majority (72%) of them were full-time students, of them 20% were working in

the construction industry and the others in other industries. Among those who were

working in the construction industry, they had stayed in this industry for 4.3 years on

average (Median: 2 years). Regarding what they had been doing before taking the

courses, most of them had been working in the catering industry (22%) and the

wholesale and retail industry (18%), whilst 11% had been students.

3. High-school students (Questionnaire III) This survey covered the students from five high schools in five districts (i.e., Tuen

Mun District, Wong Tai Sin District, Sai Kung District, Kwai Tsing District, and

Kowloon City District). The majority (74%) of the respondents were male. They

were 15 years old on average (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9. Age of the high-school students (Questionnaire III)

24

Part V: The construction industry in Hong Kong

1. Image of the construction industry 1.1 General image

The opportunity in the construction industry of Hong Kong is generally believed to

be very promising. A large amount of infrastructure and private projects are under

construction and planning. The construction value per year by main contractors/

sub-contractors has increased from 90.2/ 55.7 billion in 2006 to 198.6/ 138.6 billion

in 2014 (The Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong, 2015). The value of

public and private projects will remain at the level of 80 to 110 billion and 90 to 105

billion per year respectively in the coming five years (Construction Industry Council,

2015). Five railway-expansion projects, i.e., West Island Line, South Island Line

(East), Kwun Tong Line Extension, Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail

Link, and Sha Tin to Central Link, are currently constructed to extend the reach of

Hong Kong’s railway network by 25%. Three railway projects, i.e., North Island

Line, Northern Link, and South Island Line (West), will be constructed in coming

years (MTRC, 2015). Construction workers were consequently highly demanded.

There were three areas of key activities that took up worker resources including 1)

infrastructure works, 2) building works, and 3) Renovation, Maintenance, Alteration

and Addition (RMAA) works. Construction workers of some trades were

particularly well paid. For instance, a bar bender could earn HKD 1,800 per day.

That was more than HKD 40,000 per month.

The interviewees believed that the major labour problem was ageing. Young people

were reluctant to join this industry. The ageing problem is confirmed by the statistics

of the Construction Workers Registration Board: there were 341,636 registered

construction workers in Hong Kong by 31 December 2014. Of them, 69% were

above 40 years old (Table 4). The problem of ageing labour not only exists among

skilled workers but also among general workers, although the problem is more

serious among skilled workers (Fig. 10).

25

Table 4. Age distribution of the registered workers (by 31 December 2014)

Age Registered general workers Registered skillful workers Total

Below 20 0.37% 0.10% 0.28%

20-24 8.16% 2.24% 6.06%

25-29 9.27% 3.86% 7.35%

30-34 8.27% 7.11% 7.85%

35-39 9.58% 10.34% 9.85%

40-44 11.87% 11.96% 11.90%

45-49 12.50% 12.06% 12.34%

50-54 13.31% 16.50% 14.44%

55-59 13.84% 19.57% 15.88%

60 or above 12.82% 16.26% 14.04%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Source: Calculated from the statistics provided by the Construction Workers Registration Board,

http://cwr.hkcic.org/download/Eng_Age_Distribution.pdf.

Fig. 10. Age distribution of the registered workers (by 31 December 2014)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Below 20

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 or above

Registered general workers Registered skillful workers Total

26

The image of this industry is poor in terms of safety, working environment, welfare

and career development. Construction site work is generally quite physically

demanding, although the interviewee from the trade union clarified that “not all

trades in this industry are that physically demanding. Hard work is paid with higher

income”. A young male trainee in the CIC Training Center summed up the good pay,

and the male dominance of the industry and its social implications by saying that

“This industry is dominated by male workers. It is hard to find a girlfriend… For

those without academic qualifications, it is a good choice to work in this industry.

The income is high.” Another contractor interviewee alleged that “property

developers have dominated the market since the last few decades. The other

stakeholders, including consultants, technicians, design companies, main-contractors

and sub-contractors, and all the way to the workers, are subject to unfair terms”.

Several interviewees indicated that the education system of Hong Kong needs to be

improved. The vocational education should be further developed. Highly educated

workers are over supplied, while those with vocational education are in shortage. An

interviewee specialized in construction training activities said that “whilst the

criterion for admission to CIC training courses is Grade-3 high-school education,

many candidates have attained Grade-6 high-school education nowadays”.

The above statements were generally confirmed by participants of the four focus

group meetings, though not to the same extent. Some participants did not agree with

“high income”, “poor working environment”, or “low educational level”. They

pointed out that the so called “high income” was all they had. Unlike others who

have medical welfare, workers would have to incur their own medical expenses at

times. After factoring in the medical and other costs, the income is not so

competitive. Given their relatively low level of education, many young construction

workers are happy with the monthly income of HKD 30,000 to 40,000, which is

enough to support the family. One participant said, “There are many opportunities

for young people to be bosses in the industry. However, these opportunities alone

cannot satisfy young people any more. They require higher living qualities.”

Meanwhile, they generally admitted that the site working environment has been

improved a lot.

27

1.2 Major considerations to join or stay in the construction industry

According to the in-depth interviewees, the major consideration for people to join

this industry include: 1) introduction by friends, 2) high income, and 3) to learn a

craft. A young interviewee was introduced by his friends to this industry. The plans

of the interviewees to join or stay in this industry are varying. One interviewee (a

part-time student from the CIC Training Center) planned to stay in this industry only

temporarily. The other (a full-time student from the CIC Training Center) planned to

join this industry because he was satisfied with the joinery training that he received

from the CIC Training Center. He considered that working in the construction

industry is easier than working in the catering industry.

According to the questionnaire survey, 78% of the construction workers planned to

stay in the construction industry, only 1% of them would not stay, and the others

were not sure. The major considerations for them to stay in this industry include

good prospects of the industry, ample job opportunities, high income, and to learn a

craft. For those who were not sure whether to stay in the construction industry, they

either felt uncertain about the future or were worried about the long working hours.

Regarding the construction trainees respondents, the major considerations for them

to take construction training courses include to learn a craft, high income, and

introduction by friends (Table 5). Of them, 68% planned to stay in the construction

industry mainly for high income, good prospects, to learn a craft, and interests in

this industry (Table 6). However, 31% of them were not sure about staying in this

industry for being not sure about the future, not sure about the work or welfare, and

planning to try other industries or courses (Table 7). Lastly, 1% of them did not plan

to stay in this industry after finishing the courses.

28

Table 5. Reasons for taking construction training courses

Reasons for taking courses Percent

1. To learn a craft 59.8%

2. High income in this industry 52.4%

3. Recommended by friends 14.9%

4. Want to know about the construction industry 2.1%

5. This industry is prosperous. The career path is good. 2.1%

6. To find a job and make a living 1.8%

7. The job is stable. 0.6%

8. Can receive allowance by taking these courses. 0.3%

Table 6. Reasons for staying in the construction industry (construction trainees)

Reasons for staying Percent

1. High income 21.9%

2. The industry is prosperous. There are many opportunities in this

industry. The career path is good.

14.1%

3. Learn a craft 6.6%

4. Interested in this industry 6.0%

5. To support the family 1.5%

6. The working time is not so long. The work is not too hard. 0.9%

7. Have been trained for this industry. It is a waste of time to transfer to

other industries.

0.9%

8. Regular daily routine 0.6%

9. The job is stable. 0.6%

10. Stable holidays 0.3%

11. Flexible working time 0.3%

29

Table 7. Reasons for not sure about staying in this industry (construction trainees)

Reasons for not sure Percent

1. Not sure about the future. 4.2%

2. Depends on the work and welfare. 3.3%

3. May try other industries or other courses. 1.8%

4. The work is too hard and working time is too long. 0.6%

5. The job is not stable. 0.3%

6. Poor welfare. 0.3%

7. Dangerous work. 0.3%

According to the questionnaire survey with high-school students, 29% of the

respondents planned to join the construction industry for high income, to learn a

craft, or because of recommendations by friends (Table 8). On the other hand, 55%

of them did not plan to join this industry for not being interested, work hardship,

poor image of the industry, and disapproval by parents, etc. (Table 9). The

respondents who were not sure about joining this industry because of the following

reasons: they were not sure about their future, had no interests, would decide based

on results of their college entrance examinations, and had no idea about the

construction industry (Table 10).

Table 8. Reasons for joining the construction industry (high-school students)

Reasons for joining Percent

1. High income 25.9%

2. Learn a craft 16.5%

3. Recommended by friends 4.7%

4. Interested in this industry 0.8%

5. There are many working opportunities in this industry. 0.4%

6. Influence by parents 0.4%

7. This industry is promising. 0.4%

30

Table 9. Reasons for not joining the construction industry (high-school students)

Reasons for not joining Percent

1. No interests 42.6%

2. Work hardship 27.1%

3. Poor image of the industry 10.5%

4. Disapproval by parents 9.4%

5. Unsatisfying career development 6.7%

6. Low income 6.7%

7. Not determined yet 0.4%

Table 10. Reasons for not sure about joining this industry (high-school students)

Reasons for not sure Percent

1. Not sure about the future or interests 6.0%

2. Depends on the examination results. If failed, will join the construction industry. 2.8%

3. Not interested 1.6%

4. No idea about this industry 1.2%

5. To pursue further education 0.4%

1.3 Plan to introduce relatives and friends to the construction industry

Regarding the plan to introduce relatives and friends to this industry, the interviewee

who was a part-time student from the CIC Training Center would recommend

friends to have a try first. However, the interviewee who was a full-time student

from the center would “recommend only ordinary friends, not his best friends, to

work in this industry for companionship”. The reason was that “construction

industry is too physically-demanding, although the income is high”.

The participants of the focus group meetings supplemented that the majority of

construction labour in Hong Kong was introduced by relatives and friends already

working in the construction industry. However, construction workers themselves did

not want their family members to join this industry because the work is very hard. It

echoes the findings from the in-depth interviews.

As to the questionnaire survey, 46% of the construction workers planned to

introduce their relatives and friends to this industry, while 49% of them did not have

31

such a plan. The remaining was not sure. The top reasons for them not to introduce

relatives or friends to this industry are work hardship and uncertain prospects. For

those who plan to introduce their relatives and friends, they do it for high income,

labour shortage and the consequent opportunities, and the promising prospect of the

construction industry.

On the other hand, 40% of the construction trainee respondents planned to introduce

their relatives and friends to the construction industry for high income, promising

prospect, and to learn a craft (Table 11). For the other 27% of them who did not have

such a plan, the reasons include: work hardship, being not sure about the interests of

their relatives and friends, and potential competition between them (Table 12). The

remaining trainee respondents were not sure.

Table 11. Reasons for introducing relatives and friends (construction trainees)

Reasons for introducing Percent

1. High income 8.1%

2. The industry is promising. The career path is good. 6.9%

3. To learn craft 2.7%

4. Depends on their own interest 2.4%

5. Companionship, cooperation, and potential business partners 1.5%

6. Low entry barrier 1.2%

7. To help them find a job and to contribute to the industry 0.6%

8. Less work opportunities in other industries 0.6%

9. Good welfare 0.3%

10. For referral fee 0.3%

Table 12. Reasons for not introducing relatives and friends (construction trainees)

Reasons for not introducing Percent

1. The work is too hard. 5.1%

2. Depends on their interests and needs 1.5%

3. Introducing new labour will increase the competition in this industry. 1.2%

4. Not sure about the prospects of this industry 0.9%

32

5. Not bother to introduce 0.9%

6. The work is dangerous. 0.6%

7. Not have many friends or relatives 0.6%

8. Not have enough work to do 0.3%

9. The job is not stable. 0.3%

2. Labour in the construction industry 2.1 Direct and indirect labour

Subcontracting system has been implemented in Hong Kong for many years, to

respond to the cyclical nature of the construction industry, helping it improve its

efficiency but also its competitiveness. Contractors tend to outsource their projects

to sub-contractors of different trades. For instance, direct labor that is employed by

the main-contractors of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) is less than 10%.

However, an interviewee referred to the case of the Sung Hung Kai Properties and

said that about 60% of their workers are direct labour, and the turnover rate was only

3%. Another contractor interviewee said that of the 240,000 active workers in local

construction industry, about 15% of them were employed by main contractors and

the rest by sub-contractors. The interviewee also said, “Main contractors usually

employ a small number (dozens) of highly-skilled direct labourers to keep the

learning experience and expertise within themselves…Most of the maintenance

workers are employed direct by main contractors, particularly in the E&M trade.”

Two E&M contractor interviewees explained that the payment methods in E&M

trade were mixed. The jobs could be divided into three categories, i.e., new projects,

decoration and building maintenance. The proportion of decoration workers who

were direct labourers with monthly payment was higher.

The participants at the focus group meetings supplemented that there were three

kinds of workers in the construction industry, including salaried workers

(permanent), casual workers (temporary), and casual workers (permanent) such as

mechanic operators and E&M workers. Salaried workers (e.g., office staff, engineers,

mechanic operators, surveyors, and electrician) were usually paid on a monthly basis.

Casual workers were usually paid on a daily basis.

33

2.2 Training by CIC and the constraints

One interviewee pointed out that almost 100% of the construction workers were

trained by CIC, except for those untrained workers who were introduced by their

friends and relatives. He took specialized machinery classes for example. There

were three classes per year, with 5 students in each class. In total, only 15 students

could be trained each year, due to the very limited availability of the plant facilities.

To increase the long queue of applicants for training of plant operators, the CIC had

considered renting land to accommodate more plants for training purposes. However,

it was not easy to acquire land and obtain all necessary approvals. Besides the

short-term classes, CIC initiated the Contractor Cooperative Training Scheme

(CCTS) in 2012 to cooperate with contractors to provide on-site training to

construction workers. Later, another similar scheme called “Sub-Contractor

Cooperative Training Scheme” (SCTS) was launched in May 2013. While training

opportunities were offered by the CIC, only around 60% of the trainees stayed in the

industry for more than 12 months after training, according to the statistics provided

by the CIC. It could be due to the realities not meeting trainees’ expectations, e.g.,

work hardship and demanding site conditions.

However, the participants of the focus group meetings indicated that no more than

30% of the construction workers in Hong Kong were trained by CIC. The majority

of the construction workers were still introduced by relatives and friends, i.e.,

through social network. Many of them had already possessed certain skills before

joining the industry.

2.3 Difficulty to recruit workers

One sub-contractor interviewee indicated that construction industry had gone

through low ebb for ten years since 1997. Since the collapse of the property market

in early 1998, many construction workers went to other industries. Meanwhile, there

were not enough fresh blood entering into this industry, as there were not enough

works to absorb them anyway. Consequently, there were insufficient trained younger

people to take over the vacancies left by the older construction workers. Labour

shortage has become obvious since 2011/2012. Almost all participants of the four

focus group meetings agreed that it had been hard to recruit construction workers in

recent years. They also said, “The statement of ‘the construction industry is at its

34

peak’ is true for construction workers. However, it is not true for subcontractors due

to the increasing labour costs.”

Different trades had different situations. For instance, it is difficult to recruit

construction workers in such trades as concretors, carpenters and mechanics,

whereas it is not hard to recruit bar benders whose wage is high. A fresh bar bender

who has just finished training courses could earn HKD 1,700 per day. After working

for three years, s/he could earn HKD 2,200 per day. Before getting qualified as

craftsmen, young people usually earned HKD 800 per day, according to a contractor

interviewee. In the E&M trade, the wage of electric assembly workers could be as

high as HKD 85,000 per month, and one third of them earned more than HKD

20,000 per month, according to a sub-contractor interviewee. Some sub-contractors

and contractors in the focus group meetings said, “The income in the construction

industry is generally high in comparison with other industries, although individual

trades cannot guarantee high income (e.g., trainees in E&M trade).” Further, they

also said, “The income inequality between trades may result in workers of

lower-income trades (e.g., painters) transferring themselves to higher-income ones,

which would result in labor shortage in the low-paying trades.”

“Even though the income is high, young people may still prefer lower-income jobs

which are not that physically demanding,” said one sub-contractor interviewee. They

do not have the pressure to support the family as the elders did. The construction

industry used to be the first choice of middle school graduates who were not

qualified for college admission. Nowadays they have more choices, including going

to community colleges to get an associate degree. Further, participants of all four

focus group meetings attributed this phenomenon to the social and cultural

discrimination against the construction industry. Vocational education was neglected.

Not only are young people unwilling, but also are their parents not wanting their

children, to join the construction industry.

The trade union and sub-contractor interviewees pointed out that labour shortage

would become even more serious given the inadequate training courses. It takes 3 to

4 years for fresh construction workers to become craftsmen. It would be impossible

to train enough qualified workers to cope with such a large amount of construction

35

projects in a short time. Many workers have to wait for half a year before they could

register for the CIC training courses. Moreover, the CIC provides only short-term

training courses (e.g., 80 to 90 days). Afterwards, further trainings on site for several

more years would be needed. Although people may initially be enthusiastic to take

the training courses, some would leave the industry. However, sub-contractor

participants of the focus group meetings insisted that the turnover rate was not high.

2.4 Suggestions to attract young labour

According to the survey, several measures were particularly emphasized to attract

young people to join the construction industry, namely, increasing workers’ income

and guaranteeing their job security, improving image of the industry, providing good

career path, and improving site safety, site conditions and facilities through the joint

efforts of contractors, developers and planners, and improving workers’ welfare. In

addition, the importance of vocational education and training, parental guidance and

freedom of choice was emphasized.

Specifically, government respondents suggested increasing workers’ income and

welfare, improving site environment and image of the industry, which are similar to

what trade union and contractor respondents have suggested. Besides the above

suggestions, the respondents from statutory bodies and sub-contractors emphasized

the importance of a good career path in attracting young labour. Property developer

respondents emphasized the importance of vocational education, parental guidance

and freedom of choice. The respondents from professional institutions suggested

providing more working flexibility to construction workers, ensuring their incomes,

and improving site safety. The young generation respondents suggested reducing

working hours in the construction industry (Table 13). Construction workers and

trainees respondents identified increasing income, promising career path, and

improving the image of the construction industry to be most important, whilst

high-school students identified increasing income, promising career path, and

improving site facilities to be most important according to the questionnaire survey

(Table 14). The forum participants identified improving site conditions and facilities,

improving the image of the industry, and improving workers’ welfare to be the most

important measures. For suggestions of the respective stakeholders, please refer to

Table 15.

36

Table 13. Combined suggestions on attracting young labour (Interviews & focus group

meetings)

Stakeholders Top suggestions on attracting young people

to the construction industry

1. Government

1) Increase payment and welfare.

2) Enhance site environment.

3) Positive promotion of construction industry.

2. Statutory Bodies

1) Improve the image of the construction industry.

2) Provide promising career path.

3) Increase payment and welfare.

3. Property developers 1) Need both progressive education and parental guidance.

2) Provide freedom of choice and better working welfare.

4. Professional institutions

1) Provide more working flexibility.

2) Increase payment and ensure the stability.

3) Improve safety, site facilities and image of the

construction industry.

5. Trade union

1) Guarantee/ increase workers’ income and welfare.

2) Improve site facilities and safety.

3) Improve the image of the construction industry.

6. Contractors

1) Improve site safety, facilities and image of the

construction industry.

2) Increase payment and welfare.

3) Guarantee the stability of income.

7. Sub-contractors

1) Improve site facilities.

2) Improve image of the construction industry.

3) Provide promising career path.

8. Young generation

1) Increase payment.

2) Reduce working hours.

3) Improve image of the construction industry.

37

Table 14. Suggestions to attract young labour (Questionnaire I, II and III)

Suggestions Workers Trainees Students

1. Increase the income 65.9% 81.3% 59.2%

2. Career development 44.9% 51.8% 40.0%

3. Improve the image of this industry 37.1% 52.6% n/a

4. Opportunities to learn new skills 34.1% 43.0% 31.8%

5. Guarantee original income 32.9% 40.5% 23.1%

6. Improve site facilities 31.7% 46.8% 38.4%

7. Launch projects evenly 27.5% 25.6% 22.0%

8. Promote the prosperous vision of the industry 26.3% 33.1% 18.8%

9. Improve site conditions 2.4% n/a n/a

10. Increase system transparency 0.6% n/a n/a

11. Persuade parents that construction work is not hard n/a n/a 0.4%

12. More rest time n/a n/a 0.4%

13. Improve safety n/a 0.9% n/a

14. Guarantee stable job n/a 0.6% n/a

15. Improve the welfare n/a 0.6% n/a

16. No labour importation n/a 0.3% n/a

17. Improve the social status of construction workers n/a 0.3% n/a Note: Respondents can put forward more than one suggestions.

38

Table 15. Measures to attract young labour (Forum)

Measures

Different stakeholders

Construction

(N=28)

Consultancy

(N=20)

Development

(N=11)

Public sector

(N=8)

Others

(N=2)

1. Improve site conditions

and facilities 23 16 8 6 1

2. Improve the image of

the industry 25 12 6 4 1

3. Improve the welfare of

workers 17 13 6 8 2

4. Increase job stability

and security 17 12 6 7 0

5. Increase the income of

workers 18 11 6 5 1

6. Good opportunities of

training 14 5 7 4 1

7. Direct labour paid with

monthly salaries 12 5 4 4 0

8. Promote the job

prospect of site works 11 10 2 5 1

9. Improve the social

status of workers 12 10 3 3 0

10. Stabilized workloads

for the industry 13 7 2 3 1

11. Others, e.g., increase

workers’ level of

education.

2 0 0 0 0

Note: The sample size of this survey is 77, while only 69 of the respondents answered this question.

Respondents can put forward more than one suggestions.

3. Working time and remuneration of the construction industry 3.1 Working days per week

The interviewees indicated that office staff in the construction industry usually

worked with alternate Saturday-off, while site workers worked for 6 days per week.

39

However, construction workers who were paid on a daily basis could decide the

number of working days per week. Besides the divisions between office/site and

salaried/casual workers, the number of working days per week is also determined by

the specific type of work one engages in the trade. For instance, site professionals

work for five and a half days per week. Other site staff works for six days per week.

All participants at the focus group meetings emphasized the importance of working

flexibility, which not construction workers liked to have but also benefited certain

trades. The works of some trades have to be carried out on Saturdays due to what is

described as the “working cycles”. Saturday work provides contractors one more day,

and hence flexibility, to programme their work schedules. The participants said that

some office staff actually need to work for 5.5 to 6 days since they work with site

staff, who work for 6 days per week. In addition, the working time of

main-contractors is sometimes shorter than that of subcontractors. It was said that

the average numbers of working days were 4.8 in 2014 and 5.2 in 2013. What it

implies is that the number of contractors’ working days is already less than 6 days

per week (about 20 to 22 days per month), stripping the Saturday off would also

strip off their flexibility of planning their work. The participants attributed the

shorter working time to bad weather, working cycle (e.g., concreting could be done

only when certain conditions were met), material shortage (e.g., water),

environmental permit yet to obtain, and the unavailability of workers.

Similarly, it was found from the questionnaire survey that construction workers

normally worked for 5.8 days per week on average, 5.2 days per week during

off-season, and 6 days per week during boom season. Workers engaged in different

trades worked for different number of working days. For instance, decoration

workers usually worked for 6.3 days per week on average, followed by maintenance,

welding, and carpentry workers who worked for 6 days per week (Table 16).

40

Table 16. Number of working days per week of different trades (Questionnaire I)

Trade Average Boom season Off-season

1. Decoration 6.3 n/a n/a

2. Maintenance 6 n/a n/a

3. Welding 6 n/a n/a

4. Carpentry 6 n/a n/a

5. Scaffolding 6 6 4.5

6. Prestressing 6 n/a n/a

7. Formwork erection 6 6 6

8. Levelling 6 n/a n/a

9. Pipe-laying 6 n/a n/a

10. E&M 5.9 6.3 3.3

11. Labourer 5.9 6 5.7

12. Clerks 5.8 6.1 5.8

13. Brick-laying 5.7 6 5.5

14. Safety 5.5 5.5 5.5

15. Reinforcement fixing 5.4 6 6

16. Painting 5.3 n/a n/a

17. Concreting 5 5.3 4.3

In addition, 97% of the workers went to work on Saturdays, while 18% of them

went to work on Sundays according to the questionnaire survey. For details of the

specific trades, please refer to Table 17. The great majority (83%) of the respondents

were required by their employers to work during weekends, and 13% of them

decided by themselves. The others indicated that it depended on the workloads and

the project schedule.

41

Table 17. Percentage of construction workers working on Saturdays in different trades

(Questionnaire I)

Trade Work on Saturdays

1. Decoration 100%

2. Maintenance 100%

3. Welding 100%

4. Carpentry 100%

5. Scaffolding 100%

6. Formwork erection 100%

7. Levelling 100%

8. Pipelaying 100%

9. E&M 100%

10. Labourer 100%

11. Clerks 100%

12. Safety 100%

13. Reinforcement fixing 100%

14. Concreting 100%

15. Brick-laying 88.9%

16. Prestressing 80%

17. Painting 75%

18. Others 96.2%

3.2 Working overtime and its remuneration

Construction workers usually work from 8:00am to 6:00pm according to the survey.

Working overtime was frequent in the past two years due to labour shortage.

Overtime working is usually proposed by employers since team work is required in

this industry, and sometimes is decided by workers themselves or determined by the

workloads. The pattern of working time depends on specific trades. Workers in

certain trades work more overtime than others. Participants at the focus group

meetings indicated that construction workers usually worked for 8 hours per day

(from 8:00am to 5:00pm, or from 9:00am to 6:00pm). It was very normal to finish

work at 6:30pm. Echoing the findings of in-depth interviews and focus group

meetings, 69.1% of the construction workers respondents began to work at 8:00am,

and 20.6% of them began to work at 9:00am according to the questionnaire survey.

42

72.1% of them got off work at 6:00pm, followed by 5:00pm (9.1%). On average,

they had one hour’s rest every day. In addition, 71% of them started to work at

8:00am on Saturdays, followed by 9:00am (16.9%). About half of them (58.1%) got

off work at 6:00pm on Saturdays, and 16.9% of them got off work at 12:00noon.

77.2% of the respondents indicated that the overtime working was required by their

employers, and the others decided by themselves (14.4%) or according to the

workloads (4.8%).

The remuneration for working overtime, dependent on different time slots, is usually

1.5 to 2 times or 2 to 3 times the normal hourly rate. However, there are times when

construction workers do not receive any extra payment for working overtime. A

sub-contractor said that the payment for permanent wage staff working overtime is

divided into two categories. It is 1.2 to 1.5 times the hourly rate for day-time

overtime working, and 2 times for over-night working. Participants at the focus

group meetings pointed out that overtime remuneration is determined by both time

slots and the nature of trade. It is generally 1.5 to 2 times the hourly rate for

overtime working from 6:00pm to 12:00am (the exact multiple is determined by the

type of trade), and 4 times the hourly rate for overtime working after 12:00am.

Workers engaged in brick-laying indicated that it is 1.5 times the hourly rate to work

from 6:00pm to 10:00pm, and 2 to 3 times the hourly rate for working overnight.

However, for some trades there is a need of working at night to begin with. It is

determined by the nature of work and is usually included in employment contracts.

Workers in these trades therefore would receive no overtime remuneration since

working at night is their norm. According to the questionnaire survey, construction

workers receive 1.5 times the hourly rate from 5:00pm or 6:00pm to 12:00am, and

1.8 times the hourly rate from 12:00am to 8:00am or 9:00am. However, 13% of the

respondents indicated that they did not receive any extra payment for working

overtime, and 2% of them received extra hourly payments at 1.5 times the normal

hourly rate for all time slots.

Construction workers were asked how satisfied they were with the working time and

rewards through the questionnaire survey. About half (50%) of them indicated that

the working time was too long, 46% of them considered it moderate, and 0.6% said

it was too short. As to the satisfaction with the rewards, they generally were about

43

neutral. However, they were more satisfied with the payment than with the welfare

or career development. Specifically, half of the respondents felt neutral satisfaction

with the overall reward, 21% of them were dissatisfied with the overall reward,

followed by being satisfied (16%), dissatisfied (7%) and very satisfied (5%) (Fig.

11). In the aspect of payment, 52% of the respondents felt neutral satisfaction, 22%

felt satisfied, 15% dissatisfied, followed by very satisfied (6%), and very dissatisfied

(6%) (Fig.12). In the aspect of welfare, 37% of them felt neutral, followed by

dissatisfied (26%), satisfied (22%), very dissatisfied (11%), and very satisfied (5%)

(Fig.13). Regarding the aspect of career development, 41% of the respondents felt

neutral, followed by dissatisfied (25%), satisfied (18%), highly dissatisfied (11%),

and highly satisfied (5%) (Fig.14).

Fig. 11. Satisfaction with the overall reward (Questionnaire I)

Fig. 12. Satisfaction with the payment (Questionnaire I)

44

Fig. 13. Satisfaction with the welfare (Questionnaire I)

Fig. 14. Satisfaction with the career development (Questionnaire I)

4. Implementing flexible hours and compressed working hours The practice of “flexible hours” or “compressed working hours” was not applied to

construction works. According to the questionnaire survey, only 10% of the

construction workers respondents were arranged with flexible working hours.

In general, four reasons were put forward by the interviewees and focus group

participants for the infeasibility to adopt compressed working hours: First, working

on construction sites is highly physically demanding. The maximum number of

work hours is highly restricted by physical conditions. A sub-contractor interviewee

also commented that compressing six working days to five assumes the productivity

to be the same. However, this industry has its own peculiarities. Construction

45

workers have to work 53 hours per week already to cope with the current work load,

including 45 hours during weekdays (i.e., 9 hours per day) and 8 hours during

weekends. The working time per day cannot be further extended. Occasional

extension is acceptable, whilst long-term extension is inhumane. Workers cannot

cope with it both physically and mentally.

Second, construction work is highly constrained by the physical environment such

as sunlight and weather. Some construction works cannot be conducted at night,

even with lighting facilities, for safety reasons. Without Saturday, the total duration

of a project will take longer, and the longer a construction project lasts, the more

risks will be posed to the passers-by and the community nearby.

Third, the duration of projects nowadays is already longer than that of previous ones

because environmental legislation has been promulgated to restrict the working time.

For instance, noisy construction work is prohibited after 7:00pm during weekdays.

Construction on Saturdays is not allowed in country parks, lest tourists would be

adversely affected. Work on Sundays is also similarly forbidden.

Fourth, different trades have different practices, and hence different working times.

It is due to their specific working procedure. For example, one sub-contractor

interviewee said that reinforcement bar fixing and concreting begin at around

7:00am. Workers in these trades may get off work early. In contrast, E&M workers

usually begin to work at 9:00am or later. Accordingly, they get off work after

6:00pm. Another sub-contractor interviewee quoted another example, levelers and

painters usually begin working later. Further, bar benders can only work about 5

hours per day during the hot weather. During the four months of hot weather, they

have to have two short breaks every day. In general, all the interviewees commented

that when considering flexible and compressed working hours, the issue of daily

payment should be paid special attention to, since there are a large number of

subcontractors and casual workers who are paid daily wages.

46

Part VI: The initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

1. The feasibility of implementing this initiative 1.1 Attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

The attitudes of different stakeholders toward implementing

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” vary. According to the in-depth interviews and focus

group meetings (Table 18), developers, sub-contractors, trade union and professional

institutions generally either oppose to implement this initiative or have big concerns,

while HKCA regards the implementation to be feasible. Government and statutory

bodies generally hold neutral positions.

Table 18. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Interviews & focus

group meetings)

Stakeholders Attitudes Top reasons

1. Government Neutral Depend on project duration and public welfare.

2. Statutory Bodies Neutral Depend on the volume of construction projects.

3. Property developers No

1) Exacerbate manpower shortage.

2) Lead to cycle convergence problem, project delay,

and inadequate housing supply.

3) The society may not want to bear the cost.

4. Professional institutions No

1) Concern with working flexibility, work cycle,

income reduction, project delay and increasing

costs.

2) “Saturday-Site-Work” is required by certain trades.

3) The society may not want to bear the cost.

5. Trade union No

1) Not a good timing (labour shortage, ageing

problem and decreasing productivity).

2) Income reduction and working flexibility issues.

3) Certain trades need to work during weekends.

47

6. HKCA Yes

1) Progress of the society.

2) The income of construction workers is

market-driven and will not be affected.

3) The construction industry plays an important role in

Hong Kong.

7. Sub-contractors No

1) Concern with working flexibility, work cycle and

income reduction.

2) Not a good timing in terms of time, cost and

profession.

3) The society may not want to bear the cost.

8. Young generation

Yes

1) Increase working efficiency.

2) Reduce noise on Saturdays.

3) Better work-life balance.

No

1) Income reduction.

2) Reduce the flexibility of current working scheme.

3) Project delay.

1.2 Concerns on the feasibility of implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

Those who oppose to implement this initiative were mainly concerned with the

timing. It is not a good timing to implement it in the short term. They pointed out

that the construction industry is at the peak now. It has already been hard to meet the

deadline of current projects with “Saturday-Site-Work”. “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

can only lead to further project delay. The supply of housing units, including public

housing, will slow down. It will be even harder to meet the already huge demand for

housing. Moreover, project delay may prolong the disturbance to the residents

nearby. Whether the public will accept the prolonged disturbance is very much

doubtful.

To say the least, even if more young people would be attracted due to this initiative,

the productivity would remain low for quite a while because young people need to

undergo training for certain years. They insisted that it is the productivity that

matters at the current stage, rather than the number of workers. Meanwhile, the

48

construction costs (e.g. labour costs, time related costs, etc.) will increase, which

will be ultimately borne by end-users and the society at-large. In addition, the

stakeholders have not reached any consensus yet. More consultations are needed

before implementation.

They also concerned that “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is not feasible from the

perspective of the nature of construction work itself. They contended that working

during weekends is required by certain trades, e.g., utilities maintenance. Moreover,

the cycle of building construction is four to five days which cannot be reduced for

safety reasons. If “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was implemented, the follow-up work

would have to be postponed to the following Monday, which may be undesirable

from the perspective of work planning. The working cycle would be disrupted.

Further, Site workers may not have sufficient work to do every week to make a

living because they work according to project cycles. The income of casual workers,

who are paid on a daily or piecemeal basis, would be reduced. Their flexibility (e.g.,

on choosing which site and how many days to work) would be reduced as well. This

might in turn further exacerbate the problem of labour shortage.

The above concerns (especially income reduction, less working flexibility, different

characteristics of various trades, project delay, and higher construction costs) were

confirmed by both the questionnaire survey and forum participants (Table 19).

Specifically, construction workers and trainees are more concerned with the

reduction of their original income and working flexibility. They want to earn more

during boom season. Besides working flexibility and income issues, high-school

students also have concern with the specific characteristics of different trades.

The government, statutory body and professional institution respondents who hold

neutral positions about the implementation mainly are concerned with whether this

initiative could enhance public welfare, whether the volume of construction projects

could be managed, whether the public could accept it, and whether the various

stakeholders could reach consensus.

1.3 Reasons for hoping to implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

Those respondents who hope to implement this initiative believe that

49

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” could sustain the development of this industry in various

aspects. From the aspect of employers, it would be easier for them to recruit site

workers, especially young workers. The young generation values leisure time since

they have less financial burden and a lifestyle different from the older generation.

Secondly, more labor-saving technologies and innovations would be introduced to

make up for the lost work hours due to “No-Saturday-Site-Work”. With more capital

investement on machinery and technology, the labour productivity would eventually

increase. Thirdly, site safety could be improved. From the employees’ point of view,

they will have a better work-life balance, e.g., more time with family and friends,

more rest time during weekends, and more leisure time. From the aspect of the

society as a whole, this initiative could largely reduce site noise on Saturdays. In

addition, the focus group participants from HKCA pointed out that the income of

construction workers would be market driven anyway. Workers need not worry

about income reduction.

1.4 Findings from the questionnaire survey and the consultation forum

Different from most of the interviewees and focus group participants who

overwhelmingly opposed the implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, more

than half of the questionnaire respondents (69% of the construction workers and 77%

of the construction trainees) hoped to implement this initiative for a better work-life

balance. The proportion of high-school student respondents who planned to join the

construction industry increased from 29% to 52% if this initiative would be

implemented for the same reason of better work-life balance (Table 19). As to the

consultation forum, 50 out of the 77 participants considered this initiative to be

feasible for better work-life balance, attractiveness to young people, and conducing

labor-saving construction technologies and innovations (Table 20).

50

Table 19. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Questionnaire survey)

Respondents Percentage of “Yes” Top 3 reasons for “Yes” Percentage of “No” Top 3 reasons for “No”

1. Construction

workers 68.9%

1st More time with family and

friends 54.5%

31.1%

1st Potential reduction of original income

(casual workers) 19.2%

2nd More rest time during weekend 51.5% 2nd Earn more during boom season 10.8%

3rd More leisure time (e.g.

entertainment) 35.9% 3rd Lower degree of working flexibility 9.6%

2. Construction

trainees 77.4%

1st More rest time during weekend 55.7%

22.6%

1st Potential reduction of original income

(casual workers) 11.6%

2nd More time with family and

friends 55.1% 2nd Earn more during boom season 10.5%

3rd More leisure time (e.g.

entertainment) 44.6% 3rd Lower degree of working flexibility 4.4%

3. High school

students 52.2%*

1st More rest time during weekend 35.3%

47.8%

1st Lower degree of working flexibility 19.2%

2nd More leisure time (e.g.

entertainment) 30.2% 2nd Earn more during boom season 13.7%

3rd More time with family and

friends 27.1% 3rd Determined by the type of trade 11.4%

Note: Respondents can give more than one reasons. * 29% of the high-school students were willing to join the construction industry. If this initiative was implemented, 52.2% of them were willing to join.

51

Table 20. Comparison of the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” (Forum)

Stakeholders (N) Attitudes (N) Top reasons for “Yes” Top reasons for “No”

1. Construction (28) Yes (19)/

No (9)

1) Better work-life balance

2) Attract young people.

3) Benefit the sustainable

development of the

construction industry.

1) Project delay.

2) Income reduction.

3) Higher construction

costs.

2. Consultancy (20) Yes (15)/

No (5)

1) Better work-life balance

2) Attract young people.

3) Induce more

labour-saving

technologies and

innovations.

1) Project delay.

2) Higher construction

costs.

3) Reduce flexibility of

scheduling works on

Saturdays.

3. Development (11) No (6)/

Yes (5)

1) Better work-life balance

2) Attract young people.

3) Improve the image of

the construction

industry.

1) Income reduction.

1) Project delay.

2) Higher construction

costs.

4. Public sector (8) Yes (6)/

No (2)

1) Better work-life balance

2) Attract young people.

3) Benefit the sustainable

development of the

construction industry.

N/A

5. Others (2) Yes (1)/

No (1)

1) Better work-life balance

2) Attract young people.

1) A large volume of

projects going on.

2) Prolong the disturbance

to residents nearby due

to project delays.

3) Little effect on

attracting young people

to join the industry.

The differences in the perceptions of different stakeholders can be partly attributed to

52

the composition of respondents in the survey. For instance, 53% of the construction

workers in the questionnaire survey were salaried ones. We hypothesize that salaried

workers are more willing to implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, because their

payments are fixed and paid on monthly basis. Unlike their casual counterparts,

salaried workers do not have to worry about the take-home pay due to working time

reduction. The majority of the construction trainees in the questionnaire survey were

full-time ones who used to work in other industries or had no working experience.

They may be not fully aware of the implications of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, such as

the potential loss of work flexibility and project delay. In addition, almost all of the

forum participants were professionals or administrative staff (refer to Section 3.4 of

Part III). Compared to others, they may be more inclined to accept the implementation

of “No Saturday Site Work” from the perspective of the society as a whole in the long

run. It is reflected by their suggestions on how to implement this initiative (refer to

Section 3 of Part VI).

The remaining questionnaire respondents (i.e., 31% of the construction workers and

23% of the construction trainees) and 27 forum participants regarded this initiative to

be infeasible due to potential income reduction, less flexibility on choosing when to

work, project delays, and increasing construction costs. These concerns echo those of

the interviewees and focus group participants.

53

2. Factors affecting the attitudes towards “No-Saturday-Site-Work” 2.1 Construction workers

Cross Tabulation Analysis was conducted to test whether construction workers with

different demographic characteristics, work plans and working conditions had

different attitudes toward implementing this initiative. It was found that the effects of

salaried or casual staff, type of trade, respondents’ inclination to stay in this industry,

respondents’ opinions on compressed working hours, respondents’ satisfaction with

their working hour, respondents’ degree of satisfaction with the overall rewards, and

respondents’ satisfaction with the payment were significant3

. Other variables (e.g.,

gender, age, job position, income, whether working during weekends) did not have

any significant effects on the attitudes.

Specifically, the proportion of salaried staff (83%) who inclined to have this initiative

implemented was much higher than that of the casual staff (59%). The workers who

were engaged in concreting and brick-laying were generally less willing to implement

this initiative. At the focus group meeting, concreting and brick-laying workers

explained that they had already been underemployed. They only worked for 20 to 22

days per month, sometimes also due to bad weather. If “No-Saturday-Site-Work” were

implemented, their income would be further reduced and their flexibility on when to

work further compromised. Those who planned to stay in the construction industry

were more likely to agree with this initiative than those who planned to leave. The

construction workers who considered their current working time too long would like

to have compressed working hours implemented, for want of better work-life balance,

especially for those who planned to stay in the industry in the long run. Those who

were satisfied with the overall reward and payment generally did not want to have this

initiative implemented (Table 21). This can be largely due to their concerns with the

potential reduction of their incomes.

3 Salaried or casual staff: χ² (1, N = 163) = 11.10, p < 0.01; Type of trade: χ² (19, N = 163) = 32.75, p < 0.05; Inclination to stay in this industry: χ² (2, N = 163) = 7.15, p < 0.05; Opinions on compressed working hours: χ² (1, N = 163) = 37.32, p < 0.001; Satisfaction with their working hour: χ² (2, N = 163) = 14.96, p < 0.05; Satisfaction with the overall rewards: χ² (4, N = 163) = 17.31, p < 0.05; Satisfaction with the payment: χ² (4, N = 163) = 17.21, p < 0.05.

54

2.2 Construction trainees

Cross Tabulation Analysis was also conducted to analyze the attitudes of construction

trainees. It was found that the type of trade under training, respondents’ satisfaction

with current working hour, and whether respondents want to have compressed

working hour implemented were significant4

. The other variables (e.g., gender, age,

whether working in the construction industry now, whether planning to join the

construction industry) were not significant.

Specifically, the construction trainees who were studying the courses of marble laying,

plumbing & pipe-fitting, surveying, leveling, and quantity measurement were most

likely to agree to the implementation of this initiative, followed by those studying

civil engineering supervision, safety officer, etc. The trainees who considered their

current working time too long, and would like to work compressed hours generally

also wanted to implement this initiative (Table 22). The finding is somewhat different

from our expectation that workers may be concerned with the loss of flexibility in

scheduling their own work days and the potential income reduction. As introduced in

Part IV, the construction trainee respondents were composed of 252 full-time trainees

(72%), 71 construction workers (20%), and 25 workers of other industries. The

respondents who were working in other industries may not be fully aware of the

peculiarities of the construction industry and the possible consequences of

implementing “No Saturday Site Work”. For the respondents who were currently

working in the construction industry, they might prefer better work-life balance even

if their income and working flexibility may decrease.

4 Type of trade under training: χ² (20, N = 361) = 47.16, p < 0.05; satisfaction with current working hour: χ² (2, N = 101) = 16.12, p < 0.001; whether respondents want to have compressed working hour implemented: χ² (1, N = 97) = 28.17, p < 0.001.

55

Table 21. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (construction workers)

Significant variables

Prefer to implement "No-Saturday-Site-Work" Total

No Yes

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

1. Type of workers Casual staff 31 40.8% 45 59.2% 76 100%

Salaried staff 15 17.2% 72 82.8% 87 100%

2. Trade

Reinforcement fixing 2 22.2% 7 77.8% 9 100%

Concreting 4 57.1% 3 42.9% 7 100%

Painting 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 4 100%

Electrical and mechanical services 12 33.3% 24 66.7% 36 100%

Brick-laying 12 63.2% 7 36.8% 19 100%

Labourer 5 23.8% 16 76.2% 21 100%

Clerks 1 8.3% 11 91.7% 12 100%

Professionals 1 7.7% 12 92.3% 13 100%

Scaffolding 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 2 100%

Management 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 3 100%

Prestressing 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 5 100%

Others 5 55.6% 4 44.4% 9 100%

56

3. Whether to stay in this industry Yes 38 29.9% 89 70.1% 127 100%

No 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 100%

4. Evaluate the length of current

working hours

Too long 13 15.7% 70 84.3% 83 100%

Moderate 31 40.8% 45 59.2% 76 100%

Too short 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100%

5. Whether want to implement

compressed working hour

Yes 6 15.1% 10 84.9% 16 100%

No 39 63.6% 106 36.4% 145 100%

6. Satisfaction with the overall reward

Very dissatisfied 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 4 100%

Dissatisfied 0 0.0% 12 100.0% 12 100%

Neutral 5 17.9% 23 82.1% 28 100%

Satisfied 3 33.3% 6 66.7% 9 100%

Very satisfied 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 3 100%

7. Satisfaction with the payment

Very dissatisfied 1 11.1% 8 88.9% 9 100%

Dissatisfied 6 27.3% 16 72.7% 22 100%

Neutral 14 17.7% 65 82.3% 79 100%

Satisfied 15 45.5% 18 54.5% 33 100%

Very satisfied 6 66.7% 3 33.3% 9 100%

57

58

Table 22. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (construction trainees)

Significant variables

Prefer to implement "No-Saturday-Site-Work" Total

No Yes

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

1. Type of trade under training

Reinforcement fixing 5 26.3% 14 73.7% 19 100%

Concreting 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3 100%

Machinery 4 16.7% 20 83.3% 6 100%

Welding 8 50.0% 8 50.0% 24 100%

Bricklaying 8 20.0% 32 80.0% 10 100%

Marble Laying 0 0.0% 5 100.0% 16 100%

Metal works 3 30.0% 7 70.0% 40 100%

Maintenance 3 15.8% 16 84.2% 5 100%

Carpentry & Joinery 12 33.3% 24 66.7% 19 100%

Plumbing & Pipe-fitting 0 0.0% 20 100.0% 20 100%

Painting 12 31.6% 26 68.4% 38 100%

Surveying 0 0.0% 9 100.0% 9 100%

Scaffolding 8 42.1% 11 57.9% 19 100%

Construction formwork 10 35.7% 18 64.3% 28 100%

59

Leveling 0 0.0% 31 100.0% 31 100%

Civil Engineering Supervision 1 7.7% 12 92.3% 13 100%

Quantity Measurement 0 0.0% 8 100.0% 8 100%

Safety officer 1 14.3% 6 85.7% 7 100%

Others 4 28.6% 10 71.4% 14 100%

2. Evaluate the length of current

working hours

Too long 2 5.1% 37 94.9% 39 100%

Moderate 23 37.7% 38 62.3% 61 100%

Too short 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100%

3. Whether want to implement

compressed working hour

Yes 5 8.1% 57 91.9% 62 100%

No 20 57.1% 15 42.9% 35 100%

60

2.3 High-school students

Regarding high-school students, it was found that the plan to join the construction industry and gender were significant5

in affecting their

willingness to join the industry if “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was implemented. The other variables were insignificant.

Specifically, the high-school students who were originally not sure about joining the construction industry would be more determined to join if

this initiative was implemented compared with those who did not have the plan at the beginning. Male students were more interested in joining

the construction industry than female students (Table 23).

Table 23. Distribution of the attitudes toward the initiative (high-school students)

Significant variables

Willingness to join the construction industry if implementing "No-Saturday-Site-Work" Total

No Yes

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

1. Whether planning to join the construction industry

Yes 9 12.2% 65 87.8% 74 100%

No 100 71.4% 40 28.6% 140 100%

Not sure 10 24.4% 31 75.6% 41 100%

2. Gender Male 78 41.3% 111 58.7% 189 100%

Female 41 62.1% 25 37.9% 66 100%

5 Plan to join the construction industry: χ² (2, N = 255) = 78.06, p < 0.001; gender: χ² (1, N = 255) = 8.55, p < 0.05.

61

2.4 Forum participants

Cross Tabulation Analysis was also conducted to the forum participants. Surprisingly, it was found that neither the demographic characteristics

(e.g., age and gender) nor working conditions (e.g., job nature, position, and relevant working experience) was significant in affecting their

attitudes toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

To this end, Hypotheses 1 to 6 were supported, whilst Hypotheses 7 and 8 were not supported. For details of the eight hypotheses, please refer to

Part II.

3. Suggestions on implementing this initiative Although the implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” was supported by some respondents, considerable concerns were raised in the survey,

e.g., inappropriate timing, project delay, increase in construction costs, and decrease in income of casual workers, etc. Accordingly, respondents

were asked to give suggestions on how to implement this initiative. Generally speaking, it was suggested that this initiative should be

implemented in several stages, for instance, implement it in public projects first and gradually expand the scale. They indicated that the good

timing to implement this initiative was when there was balanced construction supply and demand. This initiative may be feasible in five to ten

years when the old generation shall have retired, and the young generation would have higher expectation for work-life balance.

Complementary measures were suggested to be taken. Exceptions should be provided to particular trades (e.g. maintenance) which could

conduct work only during weekends. Cooperation among various stakeholders, e.g., contractors, workers’ union and developers, would be

needed. Efforts should be made to promote the positive image of the construction industry, and the site facilities, safety, and working conditions

of construction workers should be improved. Besdies, the career path and overall welfare of construction workers should be enhanced. Their job

62

security and income stability should be guaranteed as well. To guarantee the income and job stability of construction workers, it was suggested

(by respondents of trade union, professional institutions, and statutory bodies) that more direct/contract labour according to the length of

respective contracts should be employed, and the subcontracting system improved. However, this suggestion was opposed by respondents of

sub-contractors, contractors and developers. They contended that subcontracting was a worldwide practice which benefited efficiency.

Employment of indirect labour was partly necessitated by the uncertain workloads. Sub-contracting provides a buffer against the fluctuating

workloads.

This initiative was suggested to be implemented on a voluntary basis at the first stage. Alternate Saturday-off or half-day-off on Saturdays could

be adopted first. “No-Saturday-Site-Work” could be implemented only during off-season and regarded as a bonus for individuals’ performance.

To successfully implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work” without jeopardizing the existing level of productivity, restrictions on project delivery time

and scheduling should be relieved. For instance, it could be specified in contract as client requirement. Alternatively, labour could be imported

for short-term projects, and local workers trained for long-term ones, to make up for the lost productivity and meet the tight deadlines of current

projects. However, the trade union participants strongly opposed to importing construction workers. Another solution was to improve the

existing productivity, and reduce the dependence on labour-intensive methods. Innovative technologies such as prefabrication could be promoted

through client-driven methods and incentives such as granting of more gross floor area (GFA). The construction industry should be reformed.

The construction process should be innovated by learning the experience of other countries or regions (e.g., refineries in Scotland, and

construction companies in mainland China).

63

64

Part VII: Discussion

1. Dilemma between labour shortage, the nature of construction industry and

work-life balance It is a dilemma that the labour shortage and ageing problem, as well as the nature of

construction industry, makes contractors prefer six-day work week and long working

hours each day to complete construction works on time. On the other hand, the long

working hours makes the labour shortage and ageing problem even more serious.

To solve the dilemma in the long run, on the one hand, work-life balance of

construction workers should be highly emphasized since both working long and

unsocial hours have negative effects on the work-life balance among construction

workers. Productivity, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, performance, the

ability to attract new recruits, and safety could be adversely affected. Working long

and unsocial hours can also lead to anxiety, burnout, job stress and deteriorating

health as well (refer to Part I). Initiatives to improve the work-life balance, such as

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”, should be introduced. On the other hand, concerns of

various stakeholders should be addressed before implementing the initiative.

2. Overseas practices and implications The construction industry is known worldwide for its demanding work environment,

with long working hours and project-based nature. Despite this general situation,

some initiatives were taken to implement alternative working hours in Australia.

Based on our extensive literature search, this is the only place where such initiatives

have been documented.

One case is upgrading the Wivenhoe Dam in Queensland. This project implemented

the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” as well as the project delivery strategy of

alliance. Four models were implemented in four construction sites respectively. The

project was considered very successful, being completed with six months ahead of the

scheduled completion date, and costing less than originally estimated. Most of the

employees (both casual and salaried) indicated that their WLB (work-life balance) had

been moderately improved. Many employees indicated that this initiative would

benefit the productivity, their loyalty to the organization, and employee retention.

65

Another case is the National Museum of Australia, which employed both project

alliancing and performance-based remuneration mechanism instead of the traditional

time-based one. The traditional site allowance payment was replaced with a sliding

scale payment based upon productivity achievement. This project was completed on

time, and the final cost was below budget. The third case is a medium-sized

construction contracting organization. It conducted three kinds of work-life strategies

in two commercial building projects in Melbourne. Both salaried and casual workers

were included. After the implementation, the work-life conflict of the workers

decreased to some extent.

The success of the above three cases indicates that better WLB and project objectives

pertaining to time and cost can be achieved simultaneously in the construction

industry. WLB initiatives can further improve both individual and organizational

effectiveness in the construction industry. In addition, managers and coworkers play a

critical role in promoting the WLB strategies. They have to be engaged to make

initiatives successful.

3. Benefits of “No Saturday Site Work” “No-Saturday-Site-Work” will largely benefit construction workers with work-life

balance, and sustain the development of the construction industry. This has been

confirmed by both of the case study in Australia and some respondents in our survey.

In light of the importance of recreation and social activities (refer to Part I),

construction workers will have more time with family and friends, more leisure time,

learning time and rest time during weekends if this initiative is implemented. The

injuries due to long working hours will become less. Construction sites can be made

safer. Further, one-day reduction of working time may trigger more labour-saving

technologies and innovations to be adopted in the industry to compensate for the

reduced labour hours. The total factor productivity of construction workers may

increase at the end. This initiative is also an attraction to the young generation who

aspires for quality life and prefers the lifestyle of having more “social hours”. Lastly,

construction noise can be eliminated or reduced on Saturdays. In this way, the image

of the construction industry will be improved and the industry development can be

more sustained.

66

4. Concerns on implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” However, concerns were raised on the negative impacts of implementing this initiative,

e.g., decreased productivity, project delay, increased construction costs, decreased

“take home pay”, and prolonged disturbance to residents nearby due to project delay.

Another concern is that it will be even more difficult to recruit labour to the

construction industry due to the decreased income and less working flexibility.

Moreover, it was pointed out that the stakeholders have not achieved any consensus

yet. The feasibility of implementing compressed working week is still in doubt.

4.1 Concerns on the timing of implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

The construction industry has gone through low ebb for ten years since 1997. Many

construction workers went to other industries. Meanwhile, insufficient fresh blood

enters into this industry. During a construction boom as it is now, a large amount of

infrastructure and private projects are under construction and planning in Hong Kong.

Construction workers are consequently highly demanded. Consequently, it is difficult

to recruit adequate trained younger people to take over the vacancies left by the

retired construction workers.

Given that it has already been hard to meet the deadline of current projects with

“Saturday-Site-Work”, “No-Saturday-Site-Work” will lead to further project delay.

The supply of housing units, including public housing, will slow down. The situation

that housing supply can hardly meet the housing demand may prolong for a longer

time, and the housing price will remain at a high level. Another concern is that the

productivity will remain at a low level because young people need to undergo training

for certain years. Faced with the large amount of construction projects, productivity

may matter more than the number of workers at the current stage. Meanwhile, the

increase in construction costs (e.g. labour costs, time related costs, etc.) will be

ultimately borne by end-users and the society at-large. The stakeholders have not

reached any consensus on implementing this initiative yet. More consultations are

needed. Hence, some respondents suggested implementing this initiative in the future,

not now.

67

4.2 Concerns on the opposition by casual workers

The concern that salaried workers and casual workers may have different attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is confirmed by the

analysis. The differences are significant. The most important reason is that both

income and working flexibility of casual workers may decrease due to

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”. According to the telephone survey that was conducted by

CIC from October 2014 to January 2015, 82% of the construction workers in Hong

Kong were daily paid. The implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” will have a

broad impact on the income and working flexibility of construction workers in Hong

Kong.

4.3 Concerns on implementing compressed working week

The literature review shows that compressed work week can improve the work-life

balance of shift workers, and is positively related to job satisfaction and satisfaction

with the work schedule (refer to Part II). However, concerns on implementing

compressed working week in the construction industry, such as physical constraints,

environmental constraints, environmental legislation, and specific working procedure

of different trades, were raised by the interviewees and focus group participants.

Interestingly, the Cross Tabulation Analysis shows that the willingness to implement

compressed working week is highly correlated with the willingness to implement

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”. Given the concerns, any attempts to adopt compressed

working week to make up for the lost productivity that is caused by “No Saturday Site

Work” should be considered very carefully before practice.

4.4 Concerns on the requirements of certain trades

As discussed in Part V and Part VI, not only do different trades have different

situations of income and labour recruitment, but also they have different requirements

for working cycles (e.g., working time and sequences) as well as manual operation

(e.g., brick-laying). If “No Saturday Site Work” is implemented, the working cycle of

some trades may be disrupted. The trades (e.g., maintenance) which need to work on

Saturdays may have difficulty in undertaking the necessary work. In addition, the

works of some trades are considerably affected by the weather. Stripping Saturday off

will further decrease the number of working days for construction workers, and

reduce the flexibility of both contractors and workers to plan the work. Hence, it

68

makes sense that the particular types of trade significantly affect workers’ attitudes

toward implementing the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

5. Suggestions on how to attract young people to the construction industry 5.1 Willingness of “Generation Y” to join the industry

The so called “Generation Y” is generally more educated and thus aspiring for getting

more job satisfaction from their work. They find the long and unsocial hours of

working in a construction site very unappealing. Specifically, the foremost important

reasons for high-school students respondents not willing to join this industry include:

1) being not interested, 2) work hardship, 3) poor image of the industry, 4)

disapproval by parents, and 5) unsatisfying career development. It is worth

mentioning that one of the most important reasons for them being not sure about

joining this industry is having no idea about the construction industry.

In addition, the young generation does not have the pressure to support the family as

the elders did, and have more choices, including going to community colleges to get

an associate degree. On the other hand, vocational education is not a popular choice in

Hong Kong. It was reported that 69% of the 341,636 registered construction workers

in Hong Kong were above 40 years old by the end of 2014 according to the statistics

from the Construction Workers Registration Board. This problem has become more

serious when the new generation is more unwilling to work on sites than those before

them.

Not only are young people unwilling, but also are their parents not wanting their

children to join the construction industry due to social and cultural discrimination

against the industry. The image of the construction industry is poor in terms of safety,

working conditions, long working hours, welfare and career development. Almost half

of the construction workers respondents do not want their family members to join this

industry because of work hardship, uncertain prospect, working on Saturdays, long

working time, and dangerous work, etc. Half of the construction workers respondents

indicated that the working time is too long. They are generally unsatisfied with the

welfare and career development.

Given the above considerations, it is in doubt whether “No-Saturday-Site-Work” or

69

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” alone can positively influence the willingness of young

people to join the construction industry. According to our questionnaire survey, the

proportion of the high-school students who indicated their willingness to join the

construction industry increased from 29% to 52% if this initiative was implemented.

5.2 Measures to attract young people

Based on the characteristics of “Generation Y”, many other measures can be adopted

to attract young people to the construction industry besides implementing the

initiative. They are summarized as follows:

1) Vocational education should be further developed in Hong Kong, and be

regarded as important as higher education. Students will be provided with

more choices besides pursuing college education. They will know more about

this industry. The social status of construction workers can be improved to

some degree.

2) The image of the construction industry should be improved in terms of safety,

site conditions, site facilities (e.g., neat uniforms for workers, lifts for workers,

more bathrooms, and clean mobile toilets). It will also showcase the caring

image of this industry. Efforts should be made by both contractors and

developers. The relevant costs can be included in the tenders so that no

particular contractor would be disadvantaged.

3) The income and welfare can be increased. High income is one of the most

important reasons for construction workers, trainees and students to stay or

join the construction industry. According to the questionnaire survey, 20% of

the construction workers felt dissatisfied with the payment, whilst 37% of

them felt dissatisfied with the welfare.

4) Good career path should be shown to both current workers and potential ones.

It should be paid with special attention that 36% of the construction workers

were not satisfied with the current career path according to the questionnaire

survey.

5) Another measure is to decrease the working time in the construction industry

through adopting innovative technologies. About half (50%) of the

construction workers respondents indicated that their working time was too

long. On the other hand, adopting innovative technologies will decrease the

70

dependence on labour-intensive methods. Less labour will be required, which

may largely soothe the problem of labour shortage in the construction industry.

6) The program of works should be scheduled evenly over time so that the

cyclical nature of the industry can be smoothed out for job stability and

security. In addition, more contract labour can be employed if the amount of

construction works was stable every year. Job stability can be further

guaranteed in this way.

7) The working flexibility for construction workers should be guaranteed,

especially for casual workers.

8) The skills recognition system should be widely adopted in the construction

industry. On the other hand, developing multiple skills should be encouraged

among construction workers.

9) Discrimination against construction workers can be gradually eliminated

through the above measures. Young people may be more willing to join the

construction industry.

71

Part VIII: Conclusion and recommendations

1. Conclusion 1.1 Desirability of implementing “No Saturday Site Work”

The desirability of various stakeholders toward implementing

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” varies. According to the in-depth interviews and focus

group meetings, developers, sub-contractors and trade union generally oppose to

implement this initiative. Professional institutions have concerns on the

implementation. Government and statutory bodies generally hold neutral positions.

Only HKCA, who originally proposed this initiative, regards the implementation to be

feasible.

To investigate the attitudes of both construction workers and the young generation

who will potentially join the construction industry (including construction trainees

and high-school students) on the implementation of this initiative in more detail, and

to verify the findings of other surveys, we conducted three rounds of questionnaire

survey and a consultation forum. Interestingly, we found that more than half of the

questionnaire respondents hoped to implement this initiative. Almost two thirds of the

consultation forum participants considered this initiative to be feasible. The possible

reason for the differences in the survey has been explained in Part VI. According to

the Cross Tabulation Analysis, salaried staff, workers in certain trades (e.g.,

reinforcement fixing, painting, electrical and mechanical services, etc.), workers who

plan to stay in the construction industry, and those who are less satisfied with the

overall reward and payment are inclined to have this initiative implemented.

Construction trainees studying certain courses (e.g., marble laying, plumbing &

pipe-fitting, surveying, leveling, and quantity measurement), those who consider the

working time too long, and those who would like to work compressed hours are most

likely to agree to implement this initiative.

Combining the findings above, we can to some extent conclude that

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” is desirable to construction workers, the young generation

and the society. It is desirable in the aspects of work-life balance and sustainable

development of the construction industry. However, the feasibility of implementing it

at the current stage and the scale of implementation should be further discussed.

Certain conditions must be fulfilled before implementation. Concerns of various

72

stakeholders must also be addressed before the implementation.

1.2 Feasibility of adopting “No Saturday Site Work”

Many respondents pointed out that this initiative is feasible in the long run, but not

now. Their concerns mainly include decreased productivity, project delay, increased

construction costs, decreased “take home pay”, prolonged disturbance to residents

nearby due to project delay, disrupted working cycle, and prolonged housing supply

and demand imbalance due to slow supply of housing units (including public housing).

Concerns also exist in stakeholders not achieving any consensus.

The importance of working flexibility is greatly emphasized, which not only

construction workers like to have but also benefit certain trades. Stripping the

Saturday off will also strip off contractors’ flexibility to plan their work smoothly

given the restrictions of bad weather, working cycle, material shortage, environmental

permit yet to obtain, and the unavailability of workers. Further, construction workers

engaged in different trades work for different number of working days. The pattern of

working time depends on specific trades. Workers in certain trades work more

overtime than others. It is determined by the nature of work and is usually included in

employment contracts. Further, it was also pointed out that the practice of “flexible

hours” or “compressed working hours” is not applicable to construction works

because of physical constraints, environmental constraints, environmental legislation,

and specific working procedure of different trades.

2. Recommendations Although reservations and concerns exist among various stakeholders, “win-win”

solutions can be worked out. For employers in the construction industry, they are

mainly concerned with the tight deadline, maintaining or even improving the

productivity, and reducing the costs. For employees (especially for those casual ones),

“take-home pay” is the most important consideration, which in many cases overrides

balance between work and non-work life. In addition, working flexibility and different

characteristics of various trades are highly emphasized. In light of this,

implementation strategies for “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in short, medium and long

terms are put forward as follows.

73

2.1 Short-term strategies

Given the long-term potential benefits of the “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, initially it can

be implemented on a voluntary basis. Government is generally suggested to

implement the initiative through pilot projects, the lessons of which can be learnt

subsequently by the private sector. Employers may feel reluctant to implement new or

seemingly radical shift systems (i.e., “No-Saturday-Site-Work”) if there are no tried

and tested models. With no such experience, the learning costs for them can be high.

They may hold a conservative attitude and extend the use of overtime working system,

which is familiar to them. In this case, the government and social partners (e.g., CIC

and contractor association) can take the role of facilitating the exchange and

dissemination of information among individual firms on experiences with new

working time systems, to reduce their learning costs and to spread the use of

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

Complementary measures can be implemented in those pilot projects including: 1)

Cooperation among various stakeholders, such as contractors, sub-contractors and

workers; 2) More direct labour employment; 3) Adjusted project schedule and

working hours; and 4) Alternate Saturday-off or half-day-off on Saturdays. The

implementation of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” needs the cooperation among various

stakeholders. Support from the work environment (e.g., supervisors, managers and

peers) is essential. Employers can be offered the incentives to adopt

“No-Saturday-Site-Work” by the government. Exceptions should be given to

particular trades that can conduct work only during weekends. In light of the concerns

regarding implementing the compressed work week, a range of roster proposals can

be implemented, including: 1) work 30 minutes earlier every morning, and one

Saturday per month, with a rostered day off on the previous or following Monday; 2)

work one additional hour per working day; 3) six working days per week is made not

mandatory, and it would be up to employees’ decisions to work on Saturdays or not;

and 4) flexibility to arrange for short lengths of time away from work to deal with

non-work commitments, i.e., do not have to work all day on Saturdays.

2.2 Medium-term strategies

In the medium term, “No-Saturday-Site-Work” can be implemented only during

off-season and as a reward for good performing employees. Alternative project

74

delivery arrangements, which emphasize the collaborative nature of project alliances,

should be encouraged for implementing the “No-Saturday-Site-Work” initiative. Since

the risks (e.g., time overrun) associated with implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

are entirely borne by construction contractors under the traditional project delivery

arrangement, they would be reluctant to employ this innovative initiative. It will be

less difficult to promote the implementation of this initiative if all project participants

(both clients and contractors) agree to share the risks and rewards of the project.

Moreover, alternative remuneration mechanisms should be explored to eliminate

concerns arising from casual workers (including daily-rated, piece-rated and

hourly-rated ones) on maintaining the current level of their “take home pay”. When

measuring the remuneration, emphases should be put on production and productivity,

rather than time spent on site.

2.3 Long-term strategies

In the long term, if the benefits of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” can be realized, this

initiative may be put forward through collective agreement or legislation. However,

several prerequisites need to be met before taking this step, including no severe labour

shortage problem, consensus being reached along the project supply chain on

compressed working week, and the implications of workers’ wages and project

duration having been taken into account. Furthermore, the working conditions, job

security, career path and overall welfare of construction workers should be improved.

Innovative technologies (e.g. prefabrication and mechanization) should be employed

to improve the productivity of this industry and to reduce the dependence on

labour-intensive methods. Client-driven methods and incentives such as granting

gross floor areas can be promoted by the government to encourage the wider use of

innovative technologies in the industry. More training courses should be provided.

More training courses can provide more skilled workers to the industry, which will

soothe the problem of labour shortage to some degree. The number of working days

can be reduced accordingly. Moreover, the construction industry can be reformed and

construction process innovated by learning the experience of other countries or

regions.

75

While implementing “No-Saturday-Site-Work” might help attract and retain

workforce in the construction industry, additional measures can be adopted, including:

1) More training opportunities for construction workers and potential entrants; 2)

Enhancing the image of the construction industry; 3) Improving safety, site conditions,

and site facilities; 4) Elevating income and welfare; 5) Bright career path and

promising job security; 6) Adopting innovative and advanced technologies; 7) Higher

degree of working flexibility; and 8) Wider adoption of skills recognition system

among construction workers. With the above measures, it is anticipated that young

people will be more willing to join the construction industry in future.

76

Acknowledgement

This consultancy project was commissioned by CIC (from June 2014 to May 2015).

We appreciate the support from CIC, the CIC Training Center, and the BRE

Department. We also extend our thanks to the interviewees, focus group participants,

questionnaire respondents, and the consultation forum participants.

77

References

Armstrongs Attorneys (2011). The construction industry – overtime payment for rest

days. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://www.armstrongs.bw/The%20Construction%20Industry%20Overtime%20Paym

ent%20For%20Rest%20Periods.pdf.

Baltes, B., Briggs, T., Wright, J., and Neuman, G. (1999). Flexible and compressed

workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 496-513.

Bambra, C., Whitehead, M., Sowden, A., Akers, J., and Petticrew, M. (2008). A hard

day’s night? The effects of compressed work week interventions on the health and

work-life balance of shift workers: a systematic review. The Journal of Epidemiology

and Community Health, 62, 764-777.

Bittman, M. (2005). Sunday working and family time. Labour and Industry, 16,

59-81.

Bosch G., and Lehndorff, S. (2001). Working-time reduction and employment:

experiences in Europe and economic policy recommendations. Cambridge Journal of

Economics, 25, 209-243.

Brown, K., Bradley, L., Lingard, H., Townsend, K., and Ling, S. (2010). Working time

arrangements and recreation: making time for weekends when working long hours.

Australian Bulletin of Labour, 36 (2), 194-213.

Bryson, A., and Forth, J. (2007). Productivity and days of the week. Discussion Paper.

Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.

Burchell, B., Fagan, C., O’Brien, C., and Smith, M. (2007). Working conditions in the

European Union: the gender perspective. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef07108.htm.

78

Campbell, I. (2002). Extended working hours in Australia. Labour and Industry, 13,

91-110.

Cette, G., Chang, S., and Konte, M. (2011). The decreasing returns on working time:

an empirical analysis on panel country data. Applied Economics Letters, 18 (17),

1677-1682.

Chan, M. (2011) Fatigue: the most critical accident risk in oil and gas construction.

Construction Management and Economics, 29 (4), 341–353.

Construction Industry Council (2015). Construction expenditure forecast for public

and private sectors (2014/15 to 2023/24). Retrieved May 6, 2015, from

http://www.hkcic.org/eng/info/expenditureGraphic_2014.aspx.

Dembe, A.E., Delbos, R.G., and Erickson, J.B. (2008). The effect of occupation and

industry on the injury risks from demanding work schedules. Journal of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine, 50 (10), 1185-1194.

Eaton, S. (2003). If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment

and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42 (2), 145-167.

Fagan, C., Lyonette, C., Smith, M., and Saldana-Tejeda, A. (2011). The influence of

working time arrangements on work-life integration or ‘balance’: a review of the

international evidence. Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 32,

International Labour Office, Geneva.

Fagnani, J., and Letablier, M-T. (2004). Work and family life balance: the impact of

the 35-hour laws in France. Work, Employment and Society, 18, 551-572.

Fleming, T., Ryan, N., and Wakefield, R. (2006). Safer construction: From concept to

completion. A Literature Review. Brisbane: Cooperative Research Centre for

Construction Innovation.

79

Francis, V. (2003). Civil engineers and work-family conflict: the role of workplace

support on their work and non-work satisfaction and well-being. Proceedings of the

Second International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-II):

Sustainability and Innovation in Management and Technology, 10-12 December, 2003,

Hong Kong.

Francis V., and Lingard, H. (2004). A Quantitative Study of Work-Life Experiences in

the Public and Private Sectors of the Australian Construction Industry (pp.142).

Brisbane: Construction Industry Institute, Australia.

Gibb, A., Leaviss, J., & Bust, P. (n.d.). Ageing in construction workers. Retrieved

May 6, 2015, from

http://www.sparc.ac.uk/workshops/2007-01-22-health-workplace-design-and-the-olde

r-worker/pdf/Gibb1.pdf.

Golden, L. (2011). The effects of working time on productivity and firm performance:

a research synthesis paper. Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 33,

International Labour Office, Geneva.

Gornick, J.C., and Heron, A. (2006). The regulation of working time as work-family

reconciliation policy: comparing Europe, Japan, and the United States. Journal of

Comparative Policy Analysis, 8 (2), 149-166.

Gover, S., and Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human

resource policies? The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational

attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.

Gregory, A., and Milner, S. (2009). Trade unions and work-life balance: changing

times in France and the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47, 122-146.

Hanna, A.S., Taylor, C.S., and Sullivan, K.T. (2005). Impact of extended overtime on

construction labor productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 131 (6), 734-739.

80

Hauck A.J., Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K.D., and Peters, R.J. (2004). Project

alliancing at National Museum of Australia: the collaborative process. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 130 (1), 143-152.

Hill, E.J., Grzywacz, J.G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V.L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S., and

Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility.

Community, Work and Family, 11 (2), 149-163.

Jamal, M. (2004). Burnout, stress and health of employees on non-standard work

schedules: a study of Canadian workers. Stress and Health, 20 (3), 113-119.

Kodz, J., Davis, S., Lain, D., Strebler, M., Rick, J., Bates, P., Cummings, J., Meager,

N., Anxo, D., Gineste, S., Trinczek, R., and Pamer, S. (2003). Working long hours: a

review of the evidence. Employment Relations Research Series, No. 16, London:

Department of Trade and Industry.

Lim, W.D. (2010). A culture of work-life “imbalance” in Singapore. New Zealand

Journal of Asian Studies, 12 (2), 22-37.

Lingard, H. (2000). The relationship between “family friendly” employment practices

and the well-being and satisfaction of white collar employees in the construction

industry. 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow Caledonian

University. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1, 61-71.

Green, S., and May, S. (2003) Re-engineering construction: going against the grain.

Building Research & Information, 31 (2), 97-106.

Lingard, H., Brown, K., Bradley, L., Bailey, C., and Townsend, K. (2007). Improving

employees’ work-life balance in the construction industry: project alliance case study.

Journal of Construction and Management, 133 (10), 807-815.

Lingard, H., and Francis, V. (2004). The work-life experiences of office and site-based

employees in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and

Economics, 22, 991-1002.

81

Lingard, H., Francis, V., and Turner, M. (2012). Work-life strategies in the Australian

construction industry: implementation issues in a dynamic project-based work

environment. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 282-295.

MacKenzie, S. (2008). A close look at work and life balance/wellbeing in the

Victorian commercial building and construction sector. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://services.thomson.com.au/cpdnews/docs/OccHealthNews/DraftWellbeingResear

chReport.pdf.

MTRC (2015). Hong Kong operating network with future extensions. Retrieved May

7, 2015, from http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/sustainability/2012rpt/files/network.pdf.

OSHC (2000). Safety Attitudes, Safety Climate, and Employee Health Among Older

and Younger Workers Working at Height in Construction Industry: A Facet Approach.

Hong Kong: Occupational Safety and Health Council.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The real keys to high performance. Leader to Leader, 8, 23-29.

Ransome, P. (2007). Conceptualizing boundaries between “life” and “work”.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 374-386.

Parent-Thirion, A., Fernández Macías, E., Hurley, J., and Vermeylen, G. (2007).

Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0698.htm.

Roberts, K. (2007). Work-life balance—the sources of the contemporary problem and

the probable outcomes. Employee Relations, 29, 334-351.

Shepanski, P., Schluter, M., Ashcroft, J., and Hurditch, B. (2007). An unexpected

tragedy – evidence for the connection between working patterns and family

breakdown in Australia. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://www.relationshipsforum.org.au/report/index.html#download.

82

The Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong (2015). Report on the Quarterly

Survey of Construction Output. Retrieved May 6, 2015, from

http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp330.jsp?productCode=B1090002.

The Alberta Government (2007). A workforce strategy for Alberta’s construction

industry. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

http://work.alberta.ca/documents/workforce-strategy-construction-industry.pdf.

Townsend, K., Bailey, C., Brown, K., Bradley, L., and Lingard, H. (2006). When the

balance isn’t easy: a case study exploring the complications with work/life balance

initiative in the Australian construction industry. Proceedings Socially Responsive,

Socially Responsible Approaches to Employment and Work, Proceedings of the

ACREW Conference, Prato, Italy.

Townsend, K., Brown, K., Bradley, L., and Lingard, H. (2008). When working five

days a week seems radical: compressed working weeks in the Australian construction

industry. Proceedings 22nd Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations

Academics of Australia and New Zealand – Workers, Corporations and Community:

Facing Choices for a Sustainable Future, 429-437, Melbourne, Australia.

Townsend, K., Lingard, H., Bradley, L., and Brown, K. (2012). Complicated Working

Time Arrangements: Construction Industry Case Study. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, 138 (3), 443-448.

Turner, M., and Lingard, H. (2009). Work-life balance: an exploratory study of

supports and barriers in a construction project. International Journal of Manageing

Projects in Business, 2 (1), 94-111.

Van Wanrooy, B., and Wilson, S. (2006). Convincing the toilers? Dilemmas of long

working hours in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 20, 349-368.

Walby, S., and Olsen, W. (2002). The Impact of Women’s Position in the Labour

Market on Pay and Implications for UK Productivity. London: Women and Equality

Unit.

83

Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K., and Peters, R. (2002). Project alliancing vs project

partnering: a case study of the Australian National Museum project. Supply Chain

Management, 7, 83-91.

Wharton, A.S., and Blair-Loy, M. (2006). Long Work Hours and Family Life: A

Cross-National Study of Employees' Concerns. Journal of Family Issues, 27 (3),

415-436.

Wilkins, R. (2005). Do longer working hours lead to more workplace injuries?

Evidence from Australian industry-level panel data. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 31

(2), 155-170.

84

Appendix 1: List of the interviews

Organisation Interview date & venue

1 Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union

Time: 10:30-11:20 am

Date: 27 Aug 2014 (Wed)

Venue: 2/F, Wah Hing Commercial Centre, 383 Shanghai Street, Yaumatei, Kowloon

2 Development Bureau

Time: 3:00-3:45 pm

Date: 28 Aug 2014 (Thur)

Venue: RM1504, 15/F, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Tamar, HK

3 Construction Industry Council

(Training and Development)

Time: 9:00 – 9:45 am

Date: 2 Sept 2014 (Tue)

Venue: CIC office, 15/F, Allied Kajima Building, 138 Gloucester Road, Wanchai

4 The Hong Kong Institute of Architects

Time: 1:30 – 2:15pm

Date: 2 Sept 2014 (Tue)

Venue: HKIA Premises, 19/F One Hysan Avenue, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

5 Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors Association

Time: 4:30 – 5:15 pm

Date: 2 Sept 2014 (Tue)

Venue: Rm 11, 17/F, Eight Commercial Tower, 8 Sun Yip Street, Chai Wan, Hong Kong

85

Organisation Interview date & venue

6 Hong Kong Federation of Electrical and Mechanical

Contractors

Time: 2:30-3:15 pm

Date: 11 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: Rm 1801, 18/F., Tung Wai Commercial Bldg, 109-111 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, HK

7 Federation of Hong Kong Electrical & Mechanical Industries

Trade Unions

Time: 7:30-8:15 pm

Date: 11 Sep 2014 (Thur)

Venue: 3/F, Prosperity Centre, 982 Canton Road, Kowloon

8 The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

Time: 4:00 – 4:45 pm

Date: 18 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: HKIE Headquarters, 9/F Island Beverley, No. 1 Great George Street, Causeway Bay

9 MTR Corporation

Time: 9:05 – 9:45 am

Date: 19 Sept 2014 (Fri)

Venue: 23/F, MTR Headquarters Building, Telford Plaza, Kowloon Bay

10 CIC Training Center

(part-time student)

Time: 11:30 am – 12:00 noon

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: CICTA Kowloon Bay Training Centre, 44 Tai Yip Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon

86

Organisation Interview date & venue

11 CIC Training Center

(full-time student)

Time: 12:10 pm- 1:00 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: CICTA Kowloon Bay Training Centre, 44 Tai Yip Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon

12 REDA

Time: 4:00 – 4:45 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: 64/F, One Island East, 18 Westlands Road, Island East, Hong Kong

13 Construction Industry Council

(Research)

Time: 5:30 pm – 6:15 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: Meeting Room 3, Construction Industry Council, 15/F Allied Kajima Building, 138

Gloucester Road, Wanchai

Note:

# The part-time student has been working as a leveler for more than one year. He is employed by a private surveying company and paid on a monthly basis. He works from

Monday to Saturday every week and gets off work at 6:00 pm every day.

^ The full-time student had been working in the catering industry for more than 2 years before attending the joinery courses provided by CIC Training Center. After finishing

the 75-day courses, he will be eligible to take the mid-level licensing exam. The wage will be HKD 450 per day for the joiners who have obtained the mid-level license. For

those who have obtained the mid-level license and worked on site for 2 to 3 years, they can take the high-level licensing exam. If they pass the exam, they will be paid HKD

1,050 per day.

87

Appendix 2: Summary table of interviews

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

1. Government:

Development Bureau

Not sure. Whether the government would

like to implement this initiative depends

on projects duration. If this initiative can

enhance public welfare, the government

will support it.

1) Many site workers are paid on a daily basis. If they

do not work on Saturdays, they cannot get the payment.

2) Some workers only work for four to five days per

week. Their working flexibility will be reduced if the

initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is implemented.

3) It will be difficult for contractors to make the

payment to their employees if this initiative is

implemented

4) The implementation of this initiative may lead to cost

increase and project delay.

5) Another concern is whether the public will accept it.

For instance, people’s daily life may be affected by the

project delay of infrastructures.

This initiative can be implemented by 1)

extending construction period, 2) importing

foreign labour, and 3) leaving sufficient time

to contractors and sub-contractors to

complete projects.

88

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

6) It also depends on the accumulation of social wealth.

7) Risks exist on construction sites. Someone needs to

look after them during holidays to prevent any harm to

the public.

2. Statutory body:

2.1 Research, CIC

2.2 Training and

Development, CIC

2.3 MTRC

The position of CIC on this matter is

neutral. However, the interviewee from the

MTRC holds the opinion that five-day

working week is fine, but it is not

necessary to implement

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

1) Whether to implement this initiative depends on the

volume of construction projects. There will be 180 to

200 billion construction projects in the coming ten

years. The number of construction workers in Hong

Kong is around 78,000.

2) This initiative can be implemented provided that

sub-contracting system in Hong Kong has changed,

construction workers’ income has increased, and

importation of foreign labour is approved. However,

these premises cannot be achieved at this stage.

3) Whether payment on a daily basis can be changed

1) The productivity should be improved to

compensate the cost. The industry should

adopt new technologies (e.g., prefabrication)

and reduce the dependence on

labor-intensive methods, which can be

encouraged through gross floor area (GFA)

incentives provided by government or

through client-driven method.

2) Labour shortage can be solved through

labour importation for short-term projects,

and through training local workers for

long-term projects.

89

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

depends on the consensus of various stakeholders.

4) It is not suitable for CIC to employ direct labour for

the industry.

6) The resistance to implement this initiative not only

comes from construction workers but also from

contractors.

7) A lot more understanding of this industry is needed.

8) Working on Saturdays and Sundays can be for other

purposes. People may want to work on Saturdays and

do not prefer to have that constraint.

9) There is a cost to implement

“No-Saturday-Site-Work”, including project delay. The

extent to which plants and equipment are utilized will

be much lower than now. There is a cost to everybody.

3) To inform construction industry and

construction process in Hong Kong, the

experience of other countries or regions can

be learned from (e.g., refineries in Scotland,

construction companies in mainland China).

4) Idle land should be made full use of in

Hong Kong.

5) Restrictions of this industry can be

released in terms of changing project

delivery time and construction schedule.

Basic maintenance of infrastructure during

the weekend should not be constrained.

6) By increasing construction workers’

income.

90

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

10) It is the Hong Kong culture to work long hours.

People do not care so much about work-life balance.

7) By changing the current sub-contracting

system.

8) The government should introduce

incentives to develop construction industry

of Hong Kong.

9) Main-contractors employ construction

workers as direct labour, and then distribute

them to sub-contractors.

10) Before it is implemented, a lot of

consultations and multiple practices are

needed. More things need to be done at the

same time, such as conditions of

employment, employment opportunities,

career path, and individual welfare in the

construction industry.

91

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

11) The entry point for implementing this

initiative should be to improve the welfare

of general public.

3. Property

developers:

REDA

This initiative is not feasible to be

implemented now.

1) The current situation is that the amount of

construction projects is very large. This initiative is

feasible only when construction is at low ebb.

2) If “No-Saturday-Site-Work” is implemented,

follow-up work cannot be conducted immediately. It

has to be postponed to the next Monday, leading to

cycle convergence problem and 20% delay of the

construction period.

3) It has negative impacts on the neighborhood in

built-up areas

4) It will leads to a lower speed of housing supply.

1) The current amount of projects (valued

HKD 70 billion) should be reduced. The

value reaches HKD 140 billion if private

projects are included. This initiative is

certainly infeasible with so many projects to

construct.

2) The sub-contracting system should be

changed.

3) If legislations are promulgated and all

public projects are required to adopt this

initiative as well as prefabrication, there will

be bidding. However, construction cost must

92

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

5) The implementation of this initiative will exacerbate

the problem of manpower shortage in Hong Kong (not

only workers but also professionals). It is hard to

convince workers not to work on Saturdays because

they want to earn more when the industry is prosperous.

6) “No-Saturday-Site-Work” will reduce working

flexibility of workers.

7) Time related cost will be generated, such as inflation.

8) The society may not want to bear the cost (e.g.

soaring housing price) induced by this initiative.

9) High efficiency is favored in Hong Kong.

be high.

4. Professional

institutions:

The interviewee from the HKIE is not sure

about the implementation. The interviewee

from the HKIA personally agrees to

1) From an engineering point of view, some work can

only be done on Saturdays.

1) Successful implementation of this

initiative depends on the industry,

construction workers, and the public.

93

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

4.1 HKIE

4.2 HKIA

implement this initiative. However, he

suggests that it is not a good timing to

implement it.

2) Site workers have other restrictions (e.g.,

environment). They cannot extend working time.

3) Taxpayers will eventually bear the cost. It may cause

road congestion and affect people’s daily life. If this

initiative is implemented, the government may fail to

achieve the goal of providing more housing units to the

public in the near future.

4) Contractors may jointly oppose this initiative since

they are worried about project delay and cost rising. The

resistance also comes from construction workers. Site

workers may not have sufficient work to do every week

to make a living. Most of them are paid on a daily basis

and hired by sub-contractors. Their flexibility of

choosing which days to work will be reduced.

5) It is difficult to implement this initiative because

people nowadays are hard to accept change.

Income of casual workers should remain the

same in general. The society invests more

on construction projects.

2) Public projects can take the lead.

3) Innovative methods (e.g., prefabrication

and other mechanical techniques) should be

adopted. The government may consider

supplying more land to build prefabrication

plants.

4) It is suggested to encourage contractors to

employ more direct labour and contract

labour.

5) By extending construction durations.

6) The good timing to implement this

94

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

initiative is when the society has developed

to a certain stage with no need to construct

so many buildings in such a short period,

and the economy is prosperous.

5. Trade

Associations:

Hong Kong

Construction

Sub-Contractors

Association

It is not suitable to implement this

initiative, in terms of time, cost and

profession, at this stage.

There are mainly three concerns, namely, time, cost and

productivity.

1) The amount of construction projects is large. The

industry is faced with the problem of labour shortage.

The productivity will remain at a very low level in the

coming three years, even if more young labour is

recruited. The reason is that they are not skilled and

their productivity is very low.

2) All costs will be eventually passed to property

owners, and jointly undertaken by the society.

3) Sub-contractors will undertake greater risks. They

will not be compensated for extra costs caused by rising

1) In the long run, this initiative may be

implemented provided that various

conditions are satisfied.

2) The initiative can be implemented in new

contracts, such as public projects. However,

problems may appear during the transition

period and need to be solved. People will

make a comparison between old and new

projects.

3) It is working content that matters instead

of number of working days for young

people.

95

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

wage. It is main-contractors who are compensated in a

few public projects. Sub-contractors need to underwrite.

4) Most of the construction workers are paid on a daily

or piece basis. They can get more pay for more work.

They may not agree to shorten working time.

5) It is hard to control either time or quality through

employing direct labour. In addition, workers do not

favor “permanent employment”.

6) The function of sub-contractors is not only providing

construction labour but also providing work

arrangement, time control and quality supervision.

6. Contractors:

Hong Kong

Federation of

Electrical and

It is completely infeasible to implement

this initiative at the current situation. If it

was in 2004, it is acceptable. In principle,

this initiative can only be acceptable if all

industries in Hong Kong do not work on

1) If the initiative is implemented, current projects need

large adjustments. Projects will be delayed. Someone

has to pay for the time and cost.

2) One extreme approach is that government requires

1) Research should be conducted concerning

implementing this initiative for future

reference.

2) It is not a good timing to implement the

96

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

Mechanical

Contractors

Saturdays. employers to pay six days wage to those who work for

them continuously for five days through legislation.

However, this legislation may trigger other industries

(e.g., catering, transportation) to have this appeal.

initiative now.

3) The good timing is when construction

supply and demand is balanced, education of

construction workers is improved, and

construction industry develops steadily,

maybe 10 years later.

7. Workers’ unions:

7.1 Hong Kong

Construction

Industry Employees

General Union

7.2 Federation of

Hong Kong

Electrical &

Mechanical

Industries Trade

This initiative is feasible in the long run,

but not now. The impact of implementing

this initiative is long-term instead of

immediate.

1) Since members of contractor association have not

reached consensus, trade unions cannot act in concert

with them.

2) It is the most prosperous period of construction

industry now. Reduction of one working day brings no

benefit to any party in the face of labour shortage,

workers’ ageing and productivity decreasing.

3) The income of workers will be affected. It may be

easier for “permanent staff” to accept this initiative,

whilst not acceptable to “temporary staff”.

1) Members of contractor association need

to have a consensus. Trade union and

contractor association need to work together.

2) The opinion of sub-contractors should be

valued.

3) This initiative can be implemented in

several phases. The implementation may be

feasible in five to ten years.

4) Standard contract should be adopted.

5) Piece-based payment should be changed

to direct labour employment (“permanent

97

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

Unions

4) Certain trades, such as office electrical maintenance,

need to work during weekends.

employment”).

6) More payment for more work. Twenty

working days per month (i.e., five working

days per week) should be guaranteed for

workers.

8. Young generation:

8.1 Part-time student,

CIC Training Center

8.2 Full-time student,

CIC Training Center

The part-time student agrees to implement

this initiative, while the full-time student

disagrees.

1) Construction period will be longer.

2) Workers’ income will decrease.

3) It will be tiring if six-day workloads are squeezed

into five days.

1) More other benefits can be provided. The

government may employ more direct labour.

2) Insurance that is provided to workers

should cover medical expenses caused by

injuries and rehabilitation.

3) More heterosexual students or workers

are suggested to be recruited.

4) The positive image of construction

industry should be publicized. Work

uniforms should be better looking and can

98

Stakeholders Attitudes Concerns/ obstacles Recommendations

be worn outside working places.

5) Licensing system should be widely

adopted.

99

Appendix 3: Interview record with Hong Kong Construction Industry

Employees General Union

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 10:30 – 11:20 am

Date: 27 August 2014 (Wed)

Venue: 2/F, Wah Hing Commercial Centre, 383 Shanghai Street, Yaumatei, Kowloon

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

對建造業充滿信心。如果上不到大學，學手藝最好就是建造業。香港很多工業搬到大陸

（例如：設計，繪圖，文職），但建造業不能搬。香港有 33 萬建造工人，GDP 只有四點

幾，建造業有廣闊發展空間。行行辛苦，建造業有 90 多個工種可以選擇，有些工種不

是很辛苦，辛苦工資也高些。

2.“長薪員工”(即 salaried staff，例如專業人員和技術人員) 每週工作 5 天還是 6 天？

建造業寫字樓是長短週。寫字樓（例如：設計）返 5 日工，地盤返 6 日工。在人工中反

映出來，例如:同一間建造公司，同一個技術員，地盤每週返 6 日的月薪要比在寫字樓返

5 日的月薪高 HKD3000 至 5000。同一地盤的人輪流返長短週。

3. 最近招聘建造工人難嗎？之前呢？以後的趨勢是怎樣的？

目前建造業是 10 年來最旺的，5 條鐵路同時開工。現在招募工人困難，特別是有些工種，

例如：石屎工，釘板工，機械工等。但招募困難之餘，扎鐵工種招募不困難。扎鐵最辛

苦，人工一加加 3 年。受培訓後，扎鐵工人入行 HKD1700/日，3 年之後 HKD2200/日。

年輕人入行，未做師傅之前 HKD800/日，3 年之後一定是師傅了，建造業年輕人中 10

個有 7 個想做扎鐵。如果這份工作有錢加，肯定能留住他們。

問題是 CIC 排隊上課要排半年。不夠課程、不夠培訓就沒有合資格新人入行。

4. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

與商會意見相左，但有一個方向是相同的，長遠來講，這個計劃是可行的，但現在不行。

因為：1）商會會員做政府大型工程的支持這個計劃，但做私人發展商項目的商會會員

反對，商會自己會員未有共識，工會無法配合；2）現在建造業最旺，人手不夠，而且

工人老化，生產率降低，如果減少 1 日，對各方都沒有好處；3）40-50 歲的工人家庭負

擔大，如果無法保證每週可以開工 5 日（或 20 日/月）影響工人收入；4）建造工人不是

100

月薪制。15 年前，工會同商會原會長以及政府三方簽了“長工制合約”，但推行了 2 年遇

到問題，主要是分判商反對。

但 5〜10 年之後，等現在這批工人退休，新的一批年輕人學識比較高，對生活和工作的

要求跟年長的工人不一樣，可能可以推行。

如果要推行這個計劃：1）商會的會員需要有共識; 2）問下分包商意見，他們要不反對;

3）建議可分階段實施，3〜5 年後再做一次研究，看有何可以優化補充; 4）改變 “件工制”

為“長工制”；5）多勞多得，保證工人每月 20 日開工（每週 5 日工作）。

5. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

“彈性工作時間”其他文職寫字樓工作可以，但建造地盤不行。體力工作。

6. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

發展局，立法會，工會，商會，私人發展商，分包商，CIC，整個社會

7. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）發展局與 CIC 先聘請後培訓; 2）工人形象問題，工作服裝應要改善; 3）社會未有對

建造工人的正面宣傳，例如書本，教育; 4）政府要給學生看到建造業遠景，長遠的項目

發展目標，同時要加多培訓學額，使更多合格工人入行; 5）非強制性分包商註冊制度，

保障工人薪酬指引，推行“標準合約”（工人與分包商簽，CIC 有，但非強制，總體 2〜3

成地盤推行; 其中，公務地盤 3〜4 成推行），即使不立法，行業需要有規管；6）地盤設

施：沖涼房等。

另外有個問題，關於大判，商會的“大細糧”問題。現在有個法律，只有建造業有，叫“墊

支制度”，如果工人未能從分判商拿到工資，大判要墊支兩個月。但大判為了防止自己

承擔很多，鼓勵分包商把僱傭合約薪金“報細數”。

8. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）保證工人返工時間，20 日/月，長工制; 2）工資計算方法是什麼？是不是返工 5 日，

給 6 日工資; 3）工商要融合，商會內部會員要有統一看法; 4）合約制，合約要清晰，“標

準合約”和“長工制”。

101

Appendix 4: Interview record with Development Bureau

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 3:00 – 3:45 pm

Date: 28 Aug 2014 (Thursday)

Venue: Rm 1504, 15/F, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Tamar, HK

1. 香港受聘於總承建商和分包商的建造工人數量和比重分別是多少？受聘於“月薪制”

和“日薪制”的建造工人數量和比重分別是多少？

政府 PS1 那邊可能有數據。

2. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

不確定。對於建造工人來說可能是好事，對於家庭生活、健康來說。

政府是否願意實施這個計劃？按個別情況，看預留工期長短，如果能提升公眾利益，政

府願意支持。

3. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

1）香港好多分包商，好多日薪工人;2）工程存在風險，時間越長，風險越大; 3）與過

去相比，現在工期已經越拉越長，因為出了好多限制（例如：環保法例，週日不能開工，

晚上 7 點以後不能開工等）; 4）有些項目，例如郊野公園項目，為防止影響遊客，週六

都不會開工。

4. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）地盤工人好多是日薪工人，是否返 5 日可以給 6 日錢。好多工人是散工，可能同時

有兩三個老闆，如果週六不返工，就沒糧出; 2）有些工人本身每週只返工 4〜5 日，週

六不開工可能會降低他們的工作彈性。3）如果實施該計劃，承包商接了工程之後，怎

麼出糧給工人變複雜，因為很多工人同時為兩三個承包商工作;4）實施這個計劃可能增

加工程成本，拉長工期; 5）另外，社會是否接受也是一個問題。例如，基建項目工期拉

長了，可能對市民生活造成影響; 6）看社會積累的財富能否支持該計劃；7）建造工地

存在風險，需要有人照看，防止對市民造成傷害。

5. 您認為“工地星期六休息”的主要影響是什麼？

1）不確定這個計劃能多吸引多少年輕人入行; 2）社會有代價;3）建造工人人工可能減

102

少; 4）用家共同負擔這個計劃帶來的成本（例如：對政府客户來說，成本由納稅人共同

負擔），建造工人成為受益者。

6. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

加人工。

7. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）延長工期

2）輸入勞工

3）預留足夠時間給施工組。

103

Appendix 5: Interview record with Construction Industry Council (Training and

Development)

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 9:00-9:45 am

Date: 2 Sept 2014 (Tue)

Venue: CIC office, 15/F, Allied Kajima Building, 138 Gloucester Road, Wanchai

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

1）上一輩覺得地盤危險，污糟，辛苦 。

2）但現在正在改變。CIC 做了很多宣傳，聯絡很多持份者，看如何改進，出了很多指

引，向市民大眾宣傳建造業有前景，就業需求大。

3）需要改進香港的教育制度，發展職業教育。高學歷供應過剩，職業教育短缺。

4）現在，大家都知道建造業有前景，人工高。例如，扎鐵工，大工是 HKD1800/日，大

約 HKD40000+/月。

5）CIC 招生要求中三學歷，現在報讀的學員很多是中六學歷。

2. 香港受聘於總承建商和分包商的建造工人數量和比重分別是多少？受聘於“月薪制”

和“日薪制”的建造工人數量和比重分別是多少？

沒有數據。有些公司直接請勞工，例如：新鴻基，但仍然有些工作會交給分包商去做。

3. CIC 以及其他機構培訓的建造工人比重分別是多少？最近 10 年的趨勢是怎樣的（即

2004 到 2014 年）？

接近 100％。工友主要由 CIC 培訓，也有一些由親友介紹入行，未經培訓。但正統出來

的主要由 CIC 培訓。

1）特別機械班，每班培訓 5 個人，一年 3 個班，共培訓 15 人/年;

2）租地用作訓練用途，找發展局拿地困難;

3）考慮買模擬機回來練習，正與勞工處談，需要勞工處批准。

4. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

“日薪制”問題。

5. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

104

1）CIC 立場中立。看業界看法，如果同意，會輔助推行。

2）大家普遍能接受五日工作制的概念，例如：政府機關已經推行。市民需要有足夠的

休息時間。但要看業界看法，取決於現在工作需求有多少。

3）“日薪制”能否改變，要看各持份者能否達成共識。“日薪制”是整個建造界的情況。分

包商看接到多少工程，確定自己的工作量，但“月薪制”也未必不可行，有些工種例如“天

秤”實行“月薪制”，但大部分工種實行“日薪制”。

4）有些私人發展商（例如：新鴻基）直接請勞工，而政府工程大部分是外判，因為政

府有好多其他考慮。CIC 統一請人也未必合適。可以由主要承建商統一請人，再分派給

分包商。

5）施行這個計劃，阻力不僅來自工人，也來自承建商。可以給承建商足夠時間。

6）如果政府立法，建造業也就只能遵守。如果大家都遵守的話，就公平。

7）對於由發展局受訪者提出的“由於諸多限制，最近建設週期越來越長”的問題，認為

通常工程最終完成日期都會早於合同日期。 而一些限制（例如：環保法規）會提早計

入合同施工週期中。因為需要進行環境影響評估（即 EIA）等諮詢，工期上會有影響。

6. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

1）如果工會肯接受，推行速度會快些。但需要找到方法不損害工友利益;

2）如果由立法或勞工處出規定，太強制，可能會遭到工友抵制。

7. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）工人日薪制問題;

2）工程進度問題。

8. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

同一間公司不存在問題，因為僱員在簽約時就知道情況。

9. 您認為“工地星期六休息”的主要影響是什麼？

1）由於施行“日薪制”，工友如果星期六不返工，收入會減少。

2）香港大型基建項目最近很多，如果工人工作時間變短，會導致無法追到進度。

3）本港人口老化（包括建造工人），某些工種（例如：特別需要體力的工種）人口老化

特別嚴重。

4）對於“本身工友每週已經開工不足”的問題（由發展局受訪者提出），工人註冊處有做

105

過調查，建造工人普遍是開足工的（每週超過 5 日）。

5）這個計劃的推行是吸引年輕人入行的一個因素。

10. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造行業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）提高工人收入，現在已經可以做到了;

2）提升建造業形象，改變建造業工人在他們朋友眼中的看法;

3）關注建造業工人職業晉升，工藝進修問題（不僅為學生，也為他們父母考慮）。

11. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）由主承包方請人，再派給分包商;

2）業主提供充足時間給承建商做工程。

106

Appendix 6: Interview record with HKIA

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 1:30pm – 2:15 pm

Date: 2 Sept 2014 (Tue)

Venue: HKIA Premises, 19/F One Hysan Avenue, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

1. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

1）整體來說，現在還不是好的時機。需要考慮工人、承建商角度。

2）從可持續發展角度看，須兼顧經濟效益。例如：政府倡議近期內多提供住房給香港

市民。但如果實施這個計劃，會導致工期變長，成本增加，政府在短期內將無法提供足

夠的住房。

3）工期拉長之後，承建商各種成本會增加。現在經濟好，成本容易承擔，計劃容易推

進。但當經濟不好的時候，承建商無法負擔高成本。

4）當社會發展到一定程度，不需要這麼快興建很多建築物，同時經濟發展也好的時候，

比較適合推出這個計劃。

2. 建築師對這個計劃的普遍態度是什麼？

1）有工期變長，成本提高的擔心。

2）純粹從個人角度，贊成實施。專業人士大部分已經不需要返星期六。少部分需要返

星期六半日，例如 Resident Architects。地盤工作人員(一般包括 Clerk of Works, work

supervisor 等）分兩類，達到專業水平的地盤工作人員每週返 5 日半，其他的每週返 6

日。如地盤不需要返星期六，這樣星期六緊急情況發生機會降低，麻煩減少，請地盤工

作人員相對也容易點。較大的項目（一般超過 10 億建設成本的項目）需要請 Resident

Architects。以上地盤工作人員是月薪的。

3. 建造行業實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間”有什麼困難以及限制？

1）香港的建造業工人大部分是日薪的，很多項目是分包出去的。

2）受建造業大環境影響，承建商擔心建設週期變長，成本上升，可能會聯合起來反對

這個計劃。但長期來說，他們招聘建造業工人可能會容易些，成本也因此降低，形成對

沖。

4. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）不管是每週返 5 日還是 6 日，特別是對於“日薪制”工人來說，收入大致上不變。

2）讓更多承包商僱傭多些直接勞工。需要有承包商牽頭，從安全，環保等政府帶頭做

107

的項目開始實施，然後再慢慢擴大範圍。

3）請多些合同工，將聘請地盤工作人員的做法擴大到建造業工人。

4）更好的提前計劃工期。

5）雖然建造業工人工作性質及社會地位較難改變，但可以改善建造業大環境，例如提

高人工，改善工作環境。

6）整個社會投放多些錢於建造項目。

5. 您認為其他機構（例如政府、工會、商會、承包商以及其他專業機構等）對實施“工

地星期六休息”計劃有何顧慮？

短期來看，發展商成本上升，他們壓力會大些;他們看不到該計劃的長遠好處。

6. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）施工期變長，工序安排彈性降低。有些工序（例如：落石屎，油漆）需要等候一定

時間才能進行下一道工序。

2）大部份建造業工人是日薪的，由分包商僱用。日薪制工人工作安排更靈活，他們自

己會調整（例如：返哪個地盤，返哪幾天）。而有些高日薪的工人不會返 6 日，例如：

潛水工，他們工作辛苦，人工高，也不擔心沒有工開，就會休息多點。

7. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

對於專門做某一行的分包商來說，影響不大。但對於總承建商來說，影響較大。

8. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造行業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）實施這個計劃，能吸引更多月薪制工人入行。但日薪制工人不太受這個計劃影響，

因為日薪制工人本身就有得選可以開工幾天，以及週六開不開工。

2）可以選擇返工多少日是個吸引力。給日薪制工人更多的靈活性比實施“工地星期六休

息”計劃更能吸引他們入行。

3）增加人工，改善地盤工作環境。由政府牽頭，在政府項目如施行“支付安全”計劃般，

施行 “支付環境改善”計劃等。

108

Appendix 7: Interview record with Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors

Association

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 4:30 – 5:15 pm

Date: 2 September 2014 (Tue)

Venue: Rm 11, 17/F, Eight Commercial Tower, 8 Sun Yip Street, Chai Wan, Hong Kong

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

根據 CIC 對未來十年的預測，大量基建項目，私人項目都需要開工，未來的十年八年建

造業都會穩定發展。

2. 最近招聘建造業工人難嗎？之前呢？以後的趨勢是怎樣的？

1997/1998/1999 年以來，建造業經過 10 年時間的低潮，建造業正式再次起步在 2010 年

左右。在這 10 年中，因為不夠工開，很多工友轉行，也沒有新人入行，有一段時間，

建造業工人是青黃不接，斷層的。超過 50％的工友年齡超過 50 歲，超過 60 歲的有 20

％以上，未來人手短缺都會越來越嚴重。

2009年開始，政府以往拖住的工程開始上馬，由最初的 200億到 400億，到後來的 600/700

億，到現在平均 800 億左右，未來 5 年，政府工程每年都會保持在 700 到 800 億左右。

而人手從 1997-1998 以來一路下降。短期內招到足夠人手比較困難。不只是專業人員需

要培訓，普通工友都需要培訓。工人從剛入行對建造業有一定的認識，到中工，大工，

需要 3 到 4 年。另外，根據 CIC 要求，考大工牌至少需要進入建造業 4 年。2011/2012

年，就已經看到人手短缺的趨勢，有 5 條鐵路，還有一大堆基建項目需要開工，短期內

無法訓練出這麼多人。現在 CIC 培訓只是短期班，大部分人都是接受 80 到 90 幾天的訓

練，然後考到中工牌，但以行內經驗來說，以 90 天訓練一個人，只是為應付考試而上

堂，他們的實踐能力很低，差不多是一張白紙，到地盤之後還需要接受幾年的訓練。

建造業也面臨別的問題。之前很多人中三畢業，考不到大學，就進入建造業工作。現在

社會變了，基本上大家都是中六畢業，除非自己選擇中三以後不讀。他們中六以後選擇

很多，包括副學士等。所以行業現在能招收的人少了，與幾十年前不同，現在的年輕人

沒有家庭的壓力，不需要幫補家計，考不上大學也不急於進入建造業。

除了短期班以外，2011/2012 年推出 CCTS(即“承建商合作培訓計劃”），政府 與建造商會

的會員做的。該計劃提供 3〜6 個月的津貼給學員，吸引他們入行。好多工種，例如釘

109

板，落石屎，扎鐵是最早參與CCTS計劃的，其中扎鐵在 2012年人工就已經有HKD1300+/

日，人工高具有吸引力。後來還有別的計劃，例如 SCTS（即“分包商合作培訓計劃”）。

該項目是 2012 年年底（9/10 月）開始談的，第一班於 2013 年 5 月開辦，到現在已經超

過一年了。問題是，開始時參與的人是多的，但流失率也不低。因為學院裡環境好，而

地盤環境較差，學員入了地盤後有落差，留不住人。因此，人工高確實有吸引力，但有

些年輕人寧願選擇人工低點但是沒這麼辛苦的工作。

3. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

現在推出這計劃沒任何好處。現在項目很多，已經缺人，平均缺 9000 到 10000 人，這

個數字是行業社會公認的。即使吸引到多些新人入行了，未來 3 年生產率還是會很低，

因為他們只是幫工，生產率很低，而減低生產時間，原有的生產率就減低了六分之一，

現在的項目已經來不及做。不覺得對生產率有好處，現在不應該推出這個計劃。

長遠來講，這個計劃需要不同條件的配合。最終地產商所有的成本都會轉嫁到業主身上，

由社會共同承擔。人工不斷上升，對業界沒有一點好處。分包商需要包底，人工在預期

外增加了，沒人會給錢分包商，除非個別政府工務工程，但即使這樣，補償也不會到分

包商手裡，可能還是落入總承包商手中，這樣分包商的風險變大，因此，將每週 6 日工

作時間變為 5 日，不論對工友，還是對分包商來說都不是好事。但只要能將成本轉嫁到

合約上面，分包商就沒什麼問題。但是該可能性很低。

因此，現在來講，無論是時間、成本，還是工人專業上都不適合實施這個計劃。

4. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

現在已經有標準工時議題，建造業也是基本返 8 個鐘/日。但實際上生產時間只有差不多

6 個多鐘/日。例如，扎鐵工，現在酷熱天氣，在 4 個月中，他們每天有 2 段短暫休息時

間，這樣他們每天的生產時間差不多是 5 個多鐘。

“彈性工作時間”在建造業是施行的。每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平水，油漆開工會

晚一些。總體來講，大家每天工作時間都差不多是 8 個鐘，工作時間是有彈性的，但這

種彈性影響了一些管理層，總承建商的工作時間需要照顧地盤的工作人員，因此，地盤

管理層可以實施輪班工作。

5. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

110

主要是時間、成本和生產率。如果實施這個計劃，不僅是行業代價，也是社會成本。另

外，大部分是日薪工友，“件工制”，是包底的，多勞多得。如果將時間縮短，工友未必

贊成。

之前有兩間建造公司（例如：新昌）實施“長工制”，但結果不是很好，不可行。2000 年

唐英年報告指出，分包制度是可行的，但需要改進。分包制度的價值在於多勞多得，可

以維持生產率，保證了工友的收入，也容易控制工期。施行“長工制”，無論是時間還是

質量，都不能控制。在分判制度下，分判商的角色不僅僅是帶一班工人開工，也負責了

所有的工作安排，時間管理和質量管理。同時，工人也不喜歡“長工制”。

6. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）用這種方法（即“工地星期六休息”），吸引年輕人入行是短視的。要看生產率，而不

是人數，剛入行的年輕人生產力不夠。

2）從培訓方面入手。

3）改善地盤條件，例如，提供工人升降機，沖涼設施（夏天工人開工後有體臭，如坐

地鐵會不方便，影響社交活動），休息地方，流動廁所並有專人清理等。

4）有整齊制服等。

7. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）可以在新合同裡面實施新的計劃，例如政府工程。但新舊工程將會形成對比，需要

考慮怎樣解決過渡期的問題。

2）對於年輕人來說返 5 日或 6 日工沒什麼區別。現在很多白領都返 6 日工。自己公司

管理層每週返 5 日工，與地盤有關的返 6 日。

3）對於年輕人來說，問題不是返幾日工，而是在於做什麼。

111

Appendix 8: Interview record with Hong Kong Federation of Electrical and

Mechanical Contractors

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 2:35 pm - 3:15 pm

Date: 11 September 2014 (Thursday)

Venue: Rm 1801, 18/F., Tung Wai Commercial Bldg, 109-111 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, HK

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

建造業行內充滿挑戰，很有樂趣。然而大眾未必這麼認為。建造業的困難是制度性的，

建造業經過這麼多年發展，生態有所傾斜。地產商在過去幾十年來在市場上處於主導地

位。地產商經過整合，數目變少，形成寡頭壟斷。生態不平衡，無論在合約、制度還是

工作條件方面，都完全向地產商傾斜。向下無論是顧問公司、技師、設計、總承包商以

及下面的分包商，一路到工人層次，都受到一些不公平條款的規限。就算合約條款公平，

執行起來也不公平，因為另一方沒有能力來對立，無論是財力還是人力都存在很大差

距。

這種根基性的制度是不公平的。外面的人看到有些工人出不到糧，有些承建商欺壓工人，

雖然件數很少，但給人印象很差。這是建造業面臨的生態傾斜而引起的印象不佳的問

題。

2. 香港受聘於總承建商和分包商的建造業工人數量和比重分別是多少？受聘於“月薪制”

和“日薪制”的建造業工人數量和比重分別是多少？

受聘於總承建商的有兩類工人：1）維修保養：多數直接受聘於總承建商，例如機電業

特別多些; 2）為防止專門技術流出，通常總承建商自己都會有幾十個人（即高技能的工

人）來專做這些事，但這類工人數量不多。

現在整個行業有 24 萬活躍的建造業工人，機電工也有幾萬人，但現在沒有註冊制度，

具體數據不知道。比例大約是受聘於總承建商佔 15％，而另外 85％的工人受聘於分包

商。

3. “長薪員工”每週工作 5 天還是 6 天？

受聘於總承建商工作的工人分兩類：

1）月薪制，每週返 5 日或 5 日半。多數是 5 日半，返 6 日的很少，也有些公司是所有

員工都返 5 日的。如果要輪更工作的，有補水;

112

2）長工時薪制，這些工人是永久員工。這些工人無所謂每週是返 5 日還是 6 日，看他

們的意願，他們想返 7 日也可以，他們的計薪方式是根據時間來計算的。

4. 建造業工人加班有額外補貼嗎？補貼多少？

長工時薪制的工人，補水通常分兩級：

1）白天補水，1.2 到 1.5 倍時薪;

2）通宵更那些，通常是雙倍的。

5. 建造業工人通常加班多久？

這兩年很嚴重，因為不夠人。通常從 5 點半延長一個鐘頭，到 6 點半。這對家庭生活影

響是最小的。建造業注重團隊工作，因此加班通常由雇主提出。

6. 最近招聘建造業工人難嗎？之前呢？以後的趨勢是怎樣的？

最近招聘工人非常困難，而 10 年前（即 2004 年）招聘工人零困難。未來的趨勢仍然是

非常困難。

7. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

目前處境是完全不可行的。如果 2004 年那時候出來，就可以。原則上可以接受，如果

全港所有行業都星期六休息，就可以接受。

8. 如果把每週工作時間由 6 天壓縮為 5 天（每週仍然是 48 小時），建造業工人白天開工

有足夠的陽光嗎？

這個理論假設每週工作 6 日做 48 個小時和 5 日做 48 個小時生產力是一樣的。然而這個

行業有自己的特點，現在建造業工人每週工作已經不是 48 個小時。他們週一至週五工

作 45 小時（每天 9 小時），週六有人返半日，有人返全日（8 個小時），現在已經是每週

53 個小時，才能應付目前的工作量。

不認同也不應該將每天的工作時間延長到 9 點 25 或者 9 點 50，因為這樣大家都承受不

了，無論是體力還是精神，偶爾一個禮拜還可以，如果長期下來是不能承受的，不人道

的。現在攤開 6 日來做已經是無可奈何。

9. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

彈性工作時間在建造業某些行業已經在實行，涉及到工序問題。建造業有很多工序，有

113

些工序（例如落石屎，扎鐵）早上 7 點多就開工了，當然也是早放工的，他們下午就沒

事做了。但機電行業早上 7 點多上班也沒用，因為還沒輪到他們做事。他們 9 點甚至 9

點多才上班，也是最遲放工（到下午 6 點多）。因此，上班時間會根據工序自然發生，

不用人為安排。

有些很靠體力勞動的工種（例如扎鐵）理論上每天返工 8 個小時，但實際上每天真正工

作的時間也就只有 5 個小時。

10. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業

機構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

需要一整套計劃的配合：

1）由立法來強制執行，如果由行業自發選擇，這件事是不會發生的，因為市場會懲罰。

除非所有行業週六都不返工，也強制工地週六不開工。但需要考慮到代價，即工期延長，

成本上升，工資提高，買樓變貴;

2）可能也要考慮輸入少部分的勞工問題，這需要工會配合。理論上增加 10％的人手，

有些工作，例如維修，保養，週末還是要開工的，否則會給社會造成不便。

3）工人收入問題。85％的工人是“日薪制”/“件工制”，需要解決他們的收入問題。對於“日

薪制”的工人來說，他們可以自由選擇雇主，多勞多得。是工人不願意實施這個計劃，

而不是雇主。

11. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）如果實施該計劃，現在手頭上的工程需要有很大的調整，會導致項目延期，需要有

人為時間以及金錢付出代價;

2）比較極端的做法就是，政府立法規定如果工人連續為同一個雇主工作 5 天，該雇主

就需要支付其第 6 日的工資。但問題是，牽一發會動全身，如果建造業有這個做法，其

他行業（例如飲食業，運輸業）都會有此訴求。

12. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出

現問題？

現在大部分的工人都是“日薪制”或者“件工制”，所以實施這個計劃會有困難。

13. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）提高報酬這是由市場調節的，現在的人工已經很吸引。

2）改善工作環境，這在諸多措施中需要花費的代價最小，而重要性又超過其他的措施，

114

可以改善衛生條件，人流物流（工人升降機），休息室，更衣室，工作制服，工人福利。

可以通過合約來改善，由政府帶頭執行;

3）政府立法將一些不健康的制度非法化，令制度公平，例如，承建商不可以停付。現

在很多僱傭合約實施“pay then paid”，這個條款傷害性很大，如果總承建商收不到錢，下

面的所有人就都收不到錢，可以通過立法使這條條款自動失效。

14. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

這個計劃可以做個研究，作為以後長遠的參考，但這幾年不是實施該計劃的好時機。10

年後，可能出現供求比較平衡的狀況，工人質素提高了，整個建造業工作生態平衡了，

才比較適合推行這個計劃。

115

Appendix 9: Interview record with Federation of Hong Kong Electrical &

Mechanical Industries Trade Unions

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 7:30-8:30 pm

Date: 11 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: 3/F, Prosperity Centre, 982 Canton Road, Kowloon

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

機電行業有不同的工種，新工程時間要求比較緊些。機電業分三類（人數各佔 1/3）：1）

新工程（地盤），日薪和月薪都有；2）裝修，月薪制的多些，有些設備保養是以日薪計

的。總體來說，各種計薪方式都有；3）物業維修。

觀感是工人趨向老化。建造業形象較差，安全、待遇、福利不太吸引人。現在年輕人沒

有家庭壓力，不太願意入行。CIC 先聘請後培訓計劃不錯。開始培訓人工是 HKD8,000/

月，剛畢業是 HKD10,000/月，畢業半年是 HKD15,000/月。

2. “長薪員工”每週工作 5 天還是 6 天？

機電業多數返 6 日工，有些返長短週，取決於做哪一類的公司。

3. 最近招聘建造業工人難嗎？之前呢？以後的趨勢是怎樣的？

1）不同工種情況不一樣。機電業有很多工種，升降機、冷氣機、電力裝配等。其中電

力裝配工，高的人工有 85,000/月，1/3 的人人工有 20,000+/月。建造業工人註冊處顯示

有 25,000 個電力裝配工，整個機電行業註冊工人有 7 萬多，加上未註冊的，大約共有

10 萬人。然而市場上卻請不到人，這主要是因為待遇太低的問題。

2）另一個情況是，新的大型工程集中出現，例如地鐵、大型建築需要安裝大量的升降

機，招不到人可能是因為人手短缺問題。

4. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

1）如果待遇不變，就沒什麼問題。

2）但有些工種，需要週末返工，例如：寫字樓電器維修，反而需要在其他人放工之後

才能開工。

3）大部分工人都希望生活好點，能夠保持目前的收入，同時工作時間又能夠縮短。

4）“長工”可能容易接受些。而“散工”會有一些問題，工會指標價錢是保證他們收入

HKD1020/日。而他們的實際收入有高有低。因為有大公司，中小企業，不同行業，不

116

同需要的價錢不同。短期工程（例如：2-4 天的）不止這個價錢。有些長些的工（例如：

半年到一年的）可能就 HKD900-950/日。

5. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

建造業有個特別的地方，就是同外部環境息息相關。

1）工地工時縮減，會影響到其他環境。例如，由於現在工地基本上限制了開工時間，

由 6 日改成 5 日，會將每天的工時拉長，對於體力勞動要求高的工種（例如：扎鐵）會

承受不了。因此，需要關注每天的工作時間是多少。

2）每週少一天工作，工作進度可能受影響。

6. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

用政府立法的方式推進會難些。現在實行的週六下午休息是慢慢形成的，也有一部分人

週六下午開工。“工地星期六休息”不會一蹴而就。還有很多細節需要先了解、慢慢商量，

要實施之後才會發現問題。

7. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）存在收入問題。

2）現在一般工人需要花特定時間才能得到這些收入，这也是逐步形成的。

3）從工人角度，他們想穩定些，理論上希望實施月薪制。但他們又希望多賺些錢，只

能多開工。

8. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

同公司一般兩種員工都有，大部分是日薪的。對於日薪制員工來說，如果收入不變，就

會接受。對於月薪制員工來說，沒有影響。

9. 您認為“工地星期六休息”的主要影響是什麼？

1）從正面來講，如果休息時間多了，工人家庭會收益，他們個人也會多些進修時間，

工作效率可能也會高些。

2）現在的就業環境是用較低的人工，做較長的時間。如果現在整體條件不改善的話，

即使實施“工地星期六休息”，效果也是不好的，長遠來講還是會影響工人收入。

117

10. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

提高工人收入，改善安全環境，提高整體待遇（包括其他周邊福利），注重晉升階梯以

及個人發展前景，宣傳行業發展前景。

另外，工程量要平衡一些，不要一段時間飆升特別厲害，或跌的特別厲害，放出來的工

程量要平均一些。

11. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

該計劃實施的影響是比較長遠的，不是即時的。現在講的只是短期的效應，如果不改變

現在整體環境（例如：工作時間長，人工低，政府政策）的話，始終都會影響到工人收

入。同時，也會影響工程進度，以及整個經濟發展。

118

Appendix 10: Interview record with HKIE

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 4:00 – 4:45 pm

Date: 18 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: HKIE Headquarters, 9/F Island Beverley, No. 1 Great George Street,

Causeway Bay

1. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

1）正面：對於未入行的人以及在這行工作的人，有相當程度的吸引力。對於寫字樓工

作的人來說，是普遍歡迎的。

2）负面：不同于写字楼，对于地盘工作的工人来说有其他限制（例如：环境），不能延

長工作時間，如果人工，福利不變的話，他們是可以接受的，但對於建造業來說，會導

致成本提高以及工期拉長，最終成本會轉嫁給用家，也就是普通市民。

3）從工程師角度：有不同範疇的工程師（打工，雇主，業主），不可一概而論。對於雇

主來說，實施這個計劃成本變高。對於受聘於雇主的工程師來說，需要管理項目，控制

時間，成本，質量，實施這個計劃會導致每週工時變短，成本變高，但質量不一定變壞；

對於諮詢工程師來說，影響不大。

4）可以多採用一些創新的方法，做多些非地盤工作，例如：預製。

2. 工程師對這個計劃的態度是什麼?

1）沒有確定的答案，沒有特別贊成或反對的理由。

2）對於平衡工作生活有好處。

3）有利於吸引年輕人入行。同時，請駐地工程師也會容易些。

4）從工程角度，有些工作只能週六做，例如：道路工程，這些工程可以作為例外。

3. 建造業實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間”有什麼困難及限制？

1）可能造成道路堵塞，影響市民生活。

2）通常工地每天差不多做到 7 點，為防止噪音影響，無法拉長每天工作時間。

3）考慮到環境可持續發展，可以採用其他創新方法。例如，通過預製來實現靈活工作

時間，但香港沒有這麼多地方來建廠房，從內地運過來，會造成建設成本過高。香港可

以考慮多供應些土地來做預製。另外，也可以考慮其他機械技術。

4. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）先說服工會那邊。對於他們來說，即使人工不變，選擇彈性也會變小。

119

2）在於怎樣使大家相信實施這個計劃對於行業是好的，少一天工作可以保持工人的收

入不變。

3）考慮到一些環境因素，使大家相信這個計劃對整個社會是好的。

4）現在社會大家的接受度變低，這個計劃實施有困難。

5）由政府工程要求，可以推動這個計劃。

5. 您認為其他機構（例如政府、工會、商會、承包商以及其他專業機構等）對實施“工

地星期六休息”計劃有何顧慮?

主要阻力在工人。

6. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）工期變長，成本變高，成本最後將由納稅人承擔。

2）地盤工人根據工程週期做，每週不一定返足工。

7. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

1）月薪制工人沒所謂，返工天數變少，人工不變;但大部分工人是日薪制的，對他們會

有影響。

2）有些公司，可能因為返工時間變少，而調整月薪制工人的人工。

8. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）改變行業形象，改善工作環境。

2）工作環境已經改善了很多，CIC 做了很多事，例如增加沖涼，休息地方，改善地盤

環境。

120

Appendix 11: Interview record with MTR Corporation

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 9:05 – 9:45 am

Date: 19 Sept 2014 (Fri)

Venue: 23rd floor, MTR Headquarters Building, Telford Plaza, 33 Wai Yip Street,

Kowloon Bay

1. In your opinion, what is the image of construction industry?

There are three areas of key activities that take up worker resources in Hong Kong, including

1) infrastructure works, 2) building works, and 3) Renovation, Maintenance, Alteration and

Addition (RMAA) works. There are 7 railway projects with a total value of 110 billion dollars

to be constructed in coming years. The steady workload per year needs to be calculated.

Accordingly, the volume of workers that is needed for the level of construction workload can

be moderated.

2. What are the amount and respective proportion of construction workers employed direct by

contractors and (labour only) sub-contractors, on continuous contract basis and on daily

basis?

For the main contractors of MTRC, such as Gammon and Hsin Chong, the percentage of their

direct labor is only single digit. They may prefer to employ direct labor to do lifting operation,

tower crane, mobile crane work, as well as security and cleaning work.

3. Do you agree that the initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work” should be introduced? Please

state your reasons.

It is a nice initiative. However, there are not enough reasons to implement it now. A lot more

understanding of this industry is needed. It cannot be initiated alone. More things need to be

done at the same time, such as conditions of employment, employment opportunities, career

path, and individual welfare in the construction industry.

Five-day working week is fine, but it is not necessary to implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work”.

Working on Saturdays and Sundays can be for other purposes. Although employees in

services industry work five days per week, there is no shortage of people in this industry.

There is a cost to implement “No-Saturday-Site-Work”, including project delay. The extent to

which plants and equipment are utilized will be much lower than now. The government,

121

developer, and owner need to bear the cost. Otherwise, the productivity should be improved to

compensate the cost.

4. What are the peculiarities of the construction industry, if any, in comparison with other

industries, in implementing flexible hours as well as compressed working hours?

It is not just the number of working hours that matters to people. Many factors need to be

considered, e.g., hard work under the sun and in cold environment. In addition, this industry is

not as safe as other industries.

5. What are your concerns for implementing this initiative?

There is a cost to everybody. If this is accepted and the contract is made based on that, there

will be no problem. If the government requires firms such as MTRC to implement the

initiative, MTRC will adhere by it, provided that everyone knows the consequence (e.g.,

project delay, cost to everybody). If it is voluntary-based requirement, MTRC will complete

the railway projects as quickly as humanly possible.

Before it is implemented, a lot of consultations need to be conducted. The arrangements for

construction workers need to be looked at. There are many main-contractors who do not have

direct labor themselves. According to the CIC survey, the union prefers to have the flexibility

to choose working days. Some people may want to work on Saturdays and do not prefer to

have that constraint. Resistance comes from the existing workers who may lose the working

flexibility.

6. In your opinion, what are the general effects of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”?

Lack of flexibility is not productive. People may choose to work during weekends. There is a

cost to everybody if this initiative is implemented.

7. Do you have any other suggestions to attract more young labour force working in the

construction industry?

That working on Saturdays is not the key reason for young people’s not willing to work in the

construction industry. Attracting young people to work in this industry needs both progressive

education and parental guidance. They need the freedom of choice and better working

welfare.

122

It is not just about attracting more young people. The problem is with the skill set of

construction workers in Hong Kong. Besides the big picture, individual trades as well as

multi-skills need to be paid special attention to. There are five railway projects under

construction now, including Shatin to Central Link, high speed rail, South Island Line, West

Island Line, and Kwun Tong Line Extension with a total capital expenditure of 118 billion. In

the last three years, the capital that was spent per year is 30 billion. There are 20,000 people

working for the five lines now. Four of the five projects have been finished. The first line will

start in 2018. Construction workers working in certain trades need to wait until 2018 after

they finish bar bending and timber formwork in 2015. Multiple skills are called for.

8. Do you have any suggestions for implementing this initiative?

The initiative can neither be implemented alone nor without any exceptions. Multiple

practices and wide consultations are needed. Basic maintenance of infrastructure during the

weekend should not be constrained. The industry needs to be less labor-intensive. The

productivity needs to be improved. To transfer the manufacturing industry to mainland China

is a progressive way to reduce the number of blue-collar workers in Hong Kong.

The angle to drive this initiative should be to improve the welfare of general public. It is the

Hong Kong culture to work long hours. People do not care so much about work-life balance.

123

Appendix 12: Interview record with young generation (Part-time student, CIC

Training Center)

Interviewee: A part-time student (平水工，入行 1 年多，月薪制，私人測量公司，每週返

六日，每天下午 6 點收工)

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 11:30 am – 12:00 noon

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: CICTA Kowloon Bay Training Centre, 44 Tai Yip Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

有前途，正面。

2. 您進入建造業的主要考量是什麼？

朋友介紹，入行一年多，感覺同預計差不多。

3. 您未來是否會繼續留在建造業工作，為什麼？在“工地星期六休息”計劃實施以後呢？

暫時做著先。贊成這個計劃，這樣週六可以休息下，但希望人工不變。

4. 您會推薦您的親戚或朋友進入建造業嗎？在“工地星期六休息”計劃實施以後呢？

會推薦朋友試下先。

5. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？請說明原因。

同意：1）實施這個計劃，工人效率會高點;2）能減少週六噪音干擾。

6. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

沒什麼意見。

7. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

由政府帶頭推廣，CIC 也應該輔助。

8. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

會導致工程變慢，工期變長。

124

9. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

會麻煩點。對日薪制的人不公平，他們可能會反對。

10. 您認為“工地星期六休息”的主要影響是什麼？

沒什麼意見。

11. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

1）人工高點；2）縮短工作時間；3）使年輕人相信建造業有前途，CIC 以及政府多些

推廣。

12. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

沒什麼意見。

125

Appendix 13: Interview record with young generation (Full-time student, CIC

Training Center)

Interviewee: A full-time student（之前 2 年多從事飲食業做樓面，現在學習細木工，75

日課程可考中工牌，HKD450/日;有了 2 到 3 年地盤經驗後，可考大工牌，HKD1050/日）

Interviewers: Prof. Francis Wong & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 12:10 pm- 1:00 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: CICTA Kowloon Bay Training Centre, 44 Tai Yip Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon

1. 建造業給您的印象是什麼？

1）體力勞動;2）工作環境較污糟;3）以男性為主; 4）較難找女朋友;5）讀書不成可以考

慮這個行業;6）人工高。

2. 您進入建造業工作的主要考量是什麼？

1）人工高;2）可以學到手藝。

3. 您未來是否會進入或留在建造業工作，為什麼？在“工地星期六休息”計劃實施以後

呢？

當然會繼續留在建造業。在 CICTA 接受培訓差不多一個月，感到滿意。

4. 您會推薦您的親戚或朋友進入建造業嗎？在“工地星期六休息”計劃實施以後呢？

1）不想介紹兄弟入行，雖然人工高，但太辛苦;

2）朋友就無所謂，會介紹入行，一起做有個伴。

5. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？請說明原因。

反對。1）因為少做一日就少一日錢; 2）現在的模式較容易安排，放在一起做會比較辛

苦。

6. 跟其他行業相比，建造業在實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間” 方面是否有不

同之處？如果有的話，不同之處是什麼？

建造業通常從上午 9 點做到下午 6 點，生活習慣會好些。而飲食業，通常由早上 8 點到

晚上 8 點或 9 點，時間較長，困身。

7. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

126

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

CIC 上課時間改為週一到週五（現在是五日半）。

8. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

如果實施該計劃，每週會做少一日，會導致工期延長，需要判頭允許工期長點。

9. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

對於計日薪的工人，為他們加人工，從而保持他們收入不變，例如，由 HKD450/日增加

到 HKD500/日。

10. 您認為“工地星期六休息”的主要影響是什麼？

1）正面影響是返工變少，工人沒那麼辛苦;

2）負面影響是工期變長，社會成本增加。

11. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

現在的年輕人都比較難入行。時間縮短的話，他們會選擇入這個行業。

1）縮短每日工作時間;

2）收入高點;

3）如果沒有這麼辛苦，會有更多人入行。

12. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）多些其他福利，多些政府工;

2）保險，覆蓋因工傷導致的醫療費用，康復費用;

3）多些異性學員;

4）多宣传行业的正面形象，“威”。工作服好看些，可以穿出街。走专业路线，考牌，

发牌制。

127

Appendix 14: Interview record with REDA

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 4:00 pm – 4:45 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: 64/F, One Island East, 18 Westlands Road, Island East, Hong Kong

1. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

如果要實施這個計劃，需要許多條件的配合才能實施，除非實行月薪制，以及承判制度

不存在，現在建設工程量太大，無法配合。在香港的環境，這個計劃是不可取的。香港

信奉高效率。

1）現在起樓是 4 至 5 日的週期，如果週六不工作，就需要週一才能做善後工作，會導

致週期無法銜接，建設週期長 20%。

2）如果建設週期變長，在建成區起樓，會影響周邊居民的生活。另外，會導致香港住

房供應速度變慢。在現有的技術設施條件下，4 到 5 日建設週期再變短會導致施工不安

全。

3）另外，建設週期變長與政府目標背道而行，會加劇人手短缺問題。出台這個計劃的

背景就是香港一直都有建造業人手短缺問題，政府想解决这个问题，觉得长期来讲星期

六不开工可以吸引更多年轻人入行。但現在建造商會也打消了這個念頭。因為這個計劃

在建設低潮時期提出是可行的，但在高潮時無法實施。無法說服工人，因為他們在建設

高潮期會想著多賺錢。現在人手短缺，未來 3 年政府每年會有 700 億的工程，出台這個

計劃會導致跟不上建設計劃。

4）香港一直以来实行承判制度。在这个制度下，工人希望工程做的越快越好，這樣可

以多賺錢。現在工人能夠開足工。如果實施週六不開工的話，對工人沒好處，會減少他

們的選擇彈性。

2. 房地產開發商對這個計劃的態度是什麼?

現在建設工程量太大，無法配合。在香港的環境，這個計劃是不可取的。

3. 建造業實施“彈性工作時間”以及“壓縮工作時間”有什麼困難及限制？

不可以，很多工序需要白天做，考慮到安全因素，即使晚上加燈也不可行。

4. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）決策的人需要將現在的 700 億工程（如果計入私人工程，達到 1400 億）減少，如果

128

有這麼多工程，這個計劃一定不可行；

2）需要改變承判制度;

3）如果政府採用立法等措施，要求所有政府工程都採用週六不開工、採用預製件技術，

也有人會投標，是可行的，但建設成本會很高。

5. 您認為其他機構（例如政府、工會、商會、承包商以及其他專業機構等）對實施“工

地星期六休息”計劃有何顧慮?

工期變長，費用變高，會產生許多與時間相關的成本，包括通貨膨脹。也會導致人手短

缺（不只是工人，還包括專業人士）。

6. 對於該計劃（即“工地星期六休息”）的實施，您有何顧慮？

1）會導致工期變長;

2）影響周邊建成區居民生活;

3）實施這個計劃所產生的社會成本（例如樓價上升），社會不會願意承擔。

7. 您是否認為同公司的兩類員工（即：長薪員工和短薪員工）會導致該計劃的實施出現

問題？

無法說服日薪制工人，因為他們在建設高潮期想著要多賺錢，也會減少他們的工作彈

性。

8. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

在現在這個建設高峰期，可以忽略人口老齡化問題。本身工程量特別多，人手不夠，現

在不需要出台任何政策。只有在工程量少的時候，才適合出台這些政策。

129

Appendix 15: Interview record with Construction Industry Council (Research)

Interviewers: Prof. Y.H. Chiang & Dr. Li Tao

Time: 5:30 pm – 6:15 pm

Date: 25 Sept 2014 (Thur)

Venue: Meeting Room 3, Construction Industry Council, 15/F Allied Kajima Building, 138

Gloucester Road, Wanchai

1. 香港受聘於總承建商和分包商的建造業工人數量和比重分別是多少？受聘於“月薪制”

和“日薪制”的建造業工人數量和比重分別是多少？

新鴻基直接聘請的員工有 60％。員工周轉率只有 3％。

2. 您是否同意建造業“工地星期六休息”計劃應該實施？

不確定這個計劃是否可行，原因是：

1）未來 10 年，香港有 1800 到 2000 億的建設工程，而香港建造業工人數量大概是 78000

人。

2）要實施這個計劃，需要改變香港的承判制度，增加建造業工人的人工，以及輸入外

勞，但現在做不到。

3. 您認為哪些機構（政府部門，例如勞工處，立法會等，社會團體，例如工會，專業機

構等）應該輔助“工地星期六休息”計劃的實施？

通過政府立法，獎勵總樓面面積（GFA），或通過客戶驅動（client-driven），鼓勵建造業

採用新的技術，例如預製件技術，降低對密集勞動力的依賴程度。

4. 對於吸引更多的年輕人進入建造業，您有什麼其他的建議？

提高人工，採用新技術，例如預製件技術，吸引更多年輕人入行。

5. 對於該計劃的實施您有何建議？

1）通過政府立法獎勵總樓面面積（GFA），或通過客戶驅動（client-driven）方式，鼓勵

採用新技術，例如預製件技術，降低行業對密集勞動力的依賴度。

2）短線工程通過輸入外勞的方式來解決人手短缺問題，长线工程则通过培训本地工人

的方式。工会担心输入外劳会抢走本地工人的饭碗，但對於一些工作，例如維修等，是

長線的，一直都會有勞動力需求。

3）借鑒其他國家或地區經驗（例如：蘇格蘭煉油廠，內地建造公司），改革建造業，改

善工序。

130

4）充分利用香港的閒置土地。香港地方小，不夠地方做工程擇尾工作，從而需要大量

工人，生產率較低。

5）需要解決這個行業的一些限制，通過改變工程投放時間，以及工程時間表。

6）提高工人人工。

7）改變現有的承判制度。

8）政府發展香港建造業，出台激勵措施。

131

Appendix 16: Focus group meeting with Hong Kong Construction Sub-Contractors Association (HKCSA)

Time: 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm

Date: 17 Nov 2014

Venue: Flat 11, 17/F., Eight Commercial Tower, No. 8 Sun Yip Street, Chaiwan, Hong Kong

Facilitator: Prof. Y. H. Chiang

Co-facilitators: Dr. Li Tao & Ms. Corrine Wu

Participants: Thirteen senior committee members of HKCSA

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（1）對建造業的印象

對建造業充滿信心；大量基建及私人項目開工；建造業人工高，就業需求大；

讀書不成可以考慮這個行業；建造業形象較差；體力勞動；工作環境汙糟；地

產商在市場上處於主導地位；以男性為主；年輕人不太願意入行；需大力發展

職業教育；須計劃每年穩定的工程量。 所有參與者表示基本贊同。

（2）入行主要考量

朋友介紹；人工高；學手藝。

（3）未來工作計劃

暫時做著先；繼續留在建造業。

（4）是否會介紹親戚朋友入行 參會者表示不是非常同意第二、第三表述。建造業工人來源主要是親戚朋友互相

132

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

會推薦朋友試下先；不想介紹兄弟入行（太辛苦）；介紹朋友入行（有個伴）。 推薦入行，親戚不一定是自己的直系親屬，已入行者推薦表親，子侄或者同鄉非

常多。其他參與者表示贊同香港油漆業商會參會者的發言。

（5）建造業工人數量及比例

240,000 活躍工人/ 330,000/ 78,000 /316,300 （香港統計年鑑） / 336,002（工人

註冊處）;大約 85%僱傭於分包商/ 15%總承包商。

參會者表示每個數字都有不同的解釋。33 萬是工人註冊處登記的最新已註冊工人

的數量；24 萬則是經常開工的工人人數（已排除並不活躍的類型的工人，例如很

多年紀大的註冊工人，或者拿牌不做事的工人），這個數字相對準確；7.8 萬是新

建公營地盤內持有工作卡的工人數量（不含從事裝修，維修保養等的工人）；私營

地盤有的有工作卡，有的沒有。

（6）長薪員工每週工作日數

寫字樓 5 日；地盤 5.5~6 日；長工時薪制看他們意願；機電業大多 6 日/有些返

長短週。

參會者表示第一、二點的敘述不是很準確。分包商寫字樓工作時間一般與地盤配

合，例如：地盤工作 6 日，分包商寫字樓裡員工工作時間一般也要達到 5.5-6 日。

而對總承建商來說，寫字樓工作時間有時相比分包商寫字樓的工作時間要短。一

般來說，地盤工作沒有半日計算，因為工人來回車費已不划算上班半日，所以應

該是 5 日或者 6 日。

根據工人註冊委員會記錄，2013 年平均工作日記錄是 5.2 日，2014 年平均工作日

有所下降是 4.8 日。返工不足 6 日的原因主要如下：

1） 天氣原因，打風，下雨等；

2） 工作週期原因：消防驗收，樓宇驗收無需返工；每道工序都有關聯性，

在等待上一道工序完成時間內，下一道工序的工人無需返工，或者說上

道工序延遲，下道工序工人也跟著受影響；

133

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

3） 今年工作時間短是因為加了工資，由於工資上升，工人生活壓力減輕，

選擇少返工，導致平均工作時間有所下降。

沒有硬性規定可以規範工人必須工作 5 天或 6 天，目前的制度下，工人可以根據

自己的工作量和工作壓力自由選擇，連續上班 2 周休息 3 天，或者上班 5 天就休

息，這是他們自由選擇工作的權利。

同時有的工種特殊要求週六上班，另外工作週期也是重要原因，因為前面工作程

式影響，變成週六必須上班，如果不上班就會延誤工期。因此這種彈性選擇權非

常重要。所以不要妨礙工人的選擇權。

工友想要改善自己的生活，出於經濟上的原因，多上班一天多拿一天的工資，有

的人想多休息，每一個工人的要求都不一樣。

（7）加班補水

白天 1.2 至 1.5 倍時薪；通宵更 2 倍時薪。

參與者全體討論後得出上班時間大體有２種：早８晚５，早９晚６；加班費一般

依照時段計算：晚上６點－１２點，根據不同工種１.５－２倍時薪；過夜晚１２

點後４倍時薪。當然有的工種是夜班工種（長夜工），這在開工前已與工人提前約

定，屬於其正常工作時間，不需要額外補水。目前由於工人短缺，工人議價能力

高，分包商為趕工期都求著工人開工不得不忍受高企的薪資要求。

（8）工作超時 大家討論後比較同意：正常每天工作 8 個小時（朝 8 晚 5，或朝 9 晚 6），不同工

134

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

過去兩年非常嚴重；通常延長一個鐘（即：5:30 ~ 6:30 pm）。 種收工時間不同，有的工種確實有延長時間，但是延長時間都有補水。

（9） 培訓工人數量

由 CIC 培訓幾乎 100％；未培訓工人由親友介紹；面臨的挑戰是培訓場地有限。

參與者集體認為不同意。表示ＣＩＣ培訓的工人最多不會超過３成，行業內大多

數地盤工人確實都由親戚朋友介紹而來（同鄉、表兄弟姊妹最多），一般已經具有

一定的操作技能（因為地盤工作是集體工作，完全不會任何技能是很難協助他人

的、很難入行）。無論從ＣＩＣ畢業的人是８０００還是６０００，試問一年後仍

然還在行業內工作的還剩多少？留下的才能算是真正由ＣＩＣ培訓的。

（10）建造業實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間的特點

體力工作；香港好多分包商，好多日薪工人；每個工種有不同的工作習慣；同

外部環境息息相關（日光&天氣）；工程存在風險，工地需要照看；工程限制

（例如：環保法例）。

參與者基本表示同意。

（11） 招聘工人困難度

沒有新人入行；目前建造業是 10 年來最旺的；某些工種招聘困難（因為人工

太低，或人手短缺）；年輕人寧願選擇沒這麼辛苦的工作（即使人工低點）；未

來人手短缺都會越來越嚴重；CIC 學生到地盤之後還需要接受幾年的訓練；地

盤工作後流失率高。

參與者不認同“沒有新人入行”，２０１３年也有幾百新人入行，認同“難請人”； 建

造業工程量高對分包商不一定有好處，但對工友有好處；不認同“人工低”是難招

聘主要原因，舉例清潔工日薪都已達到６００以上，相比其他行業，香港建造業

工人工資已經相對很高了，如果說人工低應該拿出更高的參照物，絕對性地比較

不合理。如果討論人工低，放在Ｅ&Ｍ機電工程業情境下是合理的，因為他們有

在職培訓計劃，前後４年時間，學徒在這段時間內人工確實非常低，僅幾千塊每

月。而其他分包商，學師入行保證１.２萬人工，４個月畢業後拿 1.4 到 1.5 萬。

人工成本上升後，對於分判商拿標是有很大的風險，即使拿標也可能虧損。目前

135

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

建造業是１０年內最旺的是一種廣義的說法，對於工人來說，確實是；而對於分

包商多增工程量也不一定高利潤，因為面對工人不斷增長的人工。

工會的工資只是一個指標，正常時分包商按工會價格給工人，但是工人工資定價

最主要是市場行為，由當時工程量和工人數量這一供求關係決定，與發展商制定

的工期有關，由市場調節（淡季或旺季）。

另外也不能武斷的說年輕人怕吃苦而入行，而是由於社會和家庭文化對建造業的

矮化，父母心疼子女不願其受苦；或者家庭收入高，不屑入行爭取高收入；教育

系統普遍培養大學生，而忽視職業教育；整個香港文化鼓勵讀書向上，並不鼓勵

做工人；年輕人要求福利及其他更多權利。

流失率高應該找到比較行業，參與者並不認為建造業的流失率高。

（12）怎樣吸引年輕人入行

先聘請後培訓；提升建造業形象；通過教育及父母引導；通過書本、教育進行

正面宣傳；給學生看到建造業遠景 & 長遠項目發展目標；放出來的工程量平

均一些；增加培訓學額；非強制性分包商註冊制度 & “標準合約”；保障工人

薪酬；改善地盤設施（工人升降機、沖涼設施、休息地方、流動廁所等）；提

高工人收入。

參會者表示 5 日工作制不是吸引年輕人入行的主要因素。每一個問題都可以說是

有正面影響，但是某些想法並不現實。每一個問題分出來說：

1）“先聘請後培訓”保證了工資以及階梯，並且有明確的職業發展方向，這個方案

的提出有效，並且目前行業也正在執行。

2）“提升建造業形象；通過教育及父母引導；通過書本、教育進行正面宣傳”成效

不大。“通過教育及父母引導”不可能發生。

136

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

3）“給學生看到建造業遠景&長遠項目發展目標；放出來的工程量平均一些”比較

有效，未來１０年很多工程，行業非常有前途，年輕人需要看到這一點。未來五

年的每年工程量 700 到 800 億，目前和未來規劃都比較平均。

4）“增加培訓學額”:在ＣＩＣ的培訓中應該重視的是品質，在學院上課與實際地

盤做事有很大不同；應該以培訓畢業一年後還能留在行業中作為評判標準，而不

是看一開始有多少人參加培訓或簡單的看有多少人畢業。

5）“非強制性分包商註冊制度&標準合約”無需、無關，目前已經是標準合約，已

有完整保障。

6）“保障工人薪酬”:勞工法例已有保障，例如“墊資制度”。工人薪資可以層層追

擊分包商，最後有總承建商作為保障。如果建造業工人欠薪，總承建商要墊資兩

個月，而兩個月外的工資，由分包商來支付。

7）“改善地盤設施”最需要。以工人升降機、沖涼設施、以及 housekeeping（設施

乾淨整潔）為最重要需求，目前地盤這些設施少，不夠用。公務地盤是 OK 的，

但私人地盤很差。此類設施應該由總承建商考慮，而不應由分包商承擔。

8）“提高工人收入”由市場決定，現在工人收入已經很高，不需要擔心。

9）“職業晉升，工藝進修”目前行業已有不成文學師規矩。由中工、大工、師傅、

小判頭、二判，最後拿牌當大判，是可以自己做老闆的。

10）“更大的工作彈性；施行‘支付環境改善’計劃；採用新技術提高生產率”:目前

香港地盤機械的使用（例如：紮鐵、釘板、落石屎、焊預製件）已經很普遍了，

137

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

預製件技術主要應用在住房工程方面，但是仍然不能追上內地的工作效率是因為

香港更加規範（不能 24 小時開工），安全且材料用的更好，一般都是 4 天起一層。

11）“將不健康的制度非法化；承建商不可以停付；技能組合的問題；特別注意個

別行業；在建設高峰期忽略人口老齡化”沒有特別意見。

（13）對“工地星期六休息”計劃的態度

A. 個人角度支持：緊急情況機會降低、請地盤工人容易點、工人效率會高點。

B. 現在不適合實施：未有共識；人手不夠、工人老化；影響工人收入；工期

拉長 & 成本上升；分包商風險變大；現在無法改變承判制度、月薪制，以及

增加人工、輸入外勞等。

C. 長遠來講可行：5〜10 年後推行；年輕人對生活和工作平衡要求較高；建設

需求減緩；社會共同承擔成本。

D. 中立：取決於工作需求，及各持份者能否達成共識。

參與者集體表示：完全不贊同該計劃實施，主要考慮就是工作彈性和工作週期的

影響。分包商並未有風險，如果實施該計劃，所有的風險應該是大家一起承擔，

一起面對。長遠來看，工人應該會覺得沒有必要實施該計劃（大多數工人返日薪，

返工天數由他們決定），分包商們認為對他們沒有影響。保證工人在地盤工作的安

全，改善工作環境，工人收入，職業發展等應該就能吸引新人入行，而不需要這

個計劃。

（14）實施該計劃的顧慮

地盤工人每週不一定能返足工（根據工程週期做）；降低工人的工作彈性、工

序安排彈性降低；導致人手更加短缺；承包商出糧變複雜；承建商可能會聯合

起來反對；社會能否接受；行業代價 、社會成本；工地存在風險，需要有人

照看；很難控制 時間、質量；其他行業也會要求星期六休息；廣泛諮詢（有

些人不願有此限制）。

不同意“承包商出糧變複雜；工地存在風險，需要有人照看；其他行業也會要求星

期六休息”。至於“行業代價 & 社會成本”，開頭會有影響，會蝕一些，但時間久

了沒有影響。其他敘述基本同意。

（15）同一公司長薪及日薪員工是否存在問題 不存在問題，要休息一起休息。

138

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

不存在問題；對總承建商影響較大；實施有困難（大部分“日薪制”或者“件工

制”）；有些公司可能調整月薪制工人的人工。

（16）計劃實施影響

吸引年輕人入行、平衡工作生活；生產力不高（缺乏靈活性）；工期變長 & 影

響建成區居民生活；減少工人收入；用家共同負擔成本。

參與者普遍認為改善工作環境和條件才最重要，該計劃實施不是吸引年輕人入行

的有效措施，但對其他幾個影響普遍認同。

（17）實施該計劃的建議

尊重分包商、工會意見；分階段實施；實行“標準合約”；僱傭多些直接勞工；

提高工人人工；放開限制（例如：工程投放時間、工程時間表）、短線工程通

過輸入外勞；長線工程培訓本地工人；改變承判制度；改善工作環境、改善其

他福利；宣傳行業正面形象；平衡行業男女比例；以改善公眾福利為切入點；

降低對密集勞動力的依賴度；提高生產率（通過獎勵總樓面面積，或客戶驅動

方式）；多供應些土地來做預製件工廠；從先進國家或地區吸取經驗；政府發

展香港建造業。

參與討論者認為無需實施該計劃，因此沒有關於以上敘述的建議。不同意“僱傭多

些直接勞工”；認為技術改革也追不到因實施該計劃而減少的 20%的工作量。

（18） 輔助機構

需要多方配合；不會一蹴而就，很多細節需慢慢商量。 需要多方共同承擔專案週期延長的問題。

139

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（19）不同工種特點（實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間）

已有標準工時議題，建造業返 8 個鐘/日；每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平

水，油漆開工晚些；彈性工作時間在建造業某些行業已經實行；有些工序（例

如落石屎，紮鐵）早上 7 點多開工，早放工；機電行業 9 點多返工，最遲放工

（下午 6 點多）；返工時間根據工序自然發生；有些很靠體力的工種（例如紮

鐵）理論上每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有 5 個鐘。

對於以上敘述不同意並且需要更正的是：

1）“已有標準工時議題，建造業返 8 個鐘/日”應敘述為“建造業標準返工時間為 8

個鐘/日”；

2）“每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平水，油漆開工晚些”應敘述為每個工種有不

同的習慣，個別工種開工有早有晚；

3）“有些很靠體力的工種（例如紮鐵）理論上每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有

5 個鐘”應該是“紮鐵 6 到 9 月每天至少有 7 小時 45 分鐘工作時間，最多休息 15

分鐘”。

每一個工種確實有自己特別的要求和特點，無法標準化工作時間，希望制度可以

考慮工人最大的彈性安排，以配合不同工種的特點。比如吊船協會舉例：只需要

工人完成工程要求就可以了，哪怕 4 小時內已經完工也可以。

5 日工作制，最可能會贊成的是寫字樓員工，或者受雇于總承建商的寫字樓員工，

但他們的工作時間需要與地盤工人配合；但對於日薪制工人來說，這個措施不會

被贊同。因此政府出臺政策要非常小心，不好的政策會導致整個行業人才流失，

舉例：飲食業的最低工資制度。建造業文化不適合實施這個計劃。

140

Appendix 17: Focus group meeting with a construction trade works’ union

Time: 7:30 pm - 8:30 pm

Date: 3 Dec 2014

Venue: 3/F, 340-342 Portland Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, HK

Facilitator: Prof. Y. H. Chiang

Co-facilitators: Dr. Li Tao & Ms. Corrine Wu

Participants: Thirty-four members of the union

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（1）對建造業的印象

對建造業充滿信心；大量基建及私人項目開工；建造業人工高，就業需求大；

讀書不成可以考慮這個行業；建造業形象較差；體力勞動；工作環境汙糟；地

產商在市場上處於主導地位；以男性為主；年輕人不太願意入行；需大力發展

職業教育；須計劃每年穩定的工程量。

參與者對於 “建造業人工高”這一點不同意，認為表面上薪資高，然而相比其他

行業缺乏福利和其他收入。所謂的高薪資已包含醫療、津貼，完全一刀切, 因此

並不高。

對於工作環境污糟也不完全同意，認為已改善很多。

（2）入行主要考量

朋友介紹；人工高；學手藝。 所有參與者對於以上兩條敘述表示基本讚同。

（3）未來工作計劃

暫時做著先；繼續留在建造業。

（4）是否會介紹親戚朋友入行 客觀上來說建造業工人入行確實是由朋友或親戚推薦，然而主觀上來說，建造

141

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

會推薦朋友試下先；不想介紹兄弟入行（太辛苦）；介紹朋友入行（有個伴）。 業工人自身並不想自己的親人入行，希望盡有可能多讀書，不要從事這個太辛

苦的行業，與之前受訪者的觀點不謀而合。

（5）建造業工人數量及比例

240,000 活躍工人/ 330,000/ 78,000 /316,300 （香港統計年鑑） / 336,002（工人

註冊處）;大約 85%僱傭於分包商/ 15%總承包商。

缺乏數據，未回答該問題。

（6）長薪員工每週工作日數

寫字樓 5 日；地盤 5.5~6 日；長工時薪制看他們意願；機電業大多 6 日/有些返

長短週。

工人的基本態度是，排除自己的主觀因素，如果可以開工，當然願意開工。但

是目前大多數情況下每週返工時間不足 6 日，月平均工作時間為 20-22 日。主要

原因如下：

1）天氣原因；

2）工作週期原因，某些工序需要等待條件具備方可開工，例如落石屎；

3）物料不足，停水等；

4）某些地盤拿不到綠化許可，不允許周六開工。

返工天數因人而異，取決於工種，有些需要加班。坭水工可以分為做地盤、裝

修及維修的，從事維修工作的坭水工每週返工超過 6 日，而地盤有些不足 6 日。

（7）加班補水

白天 1.2 至 1.5 倍時薪；通宵更 2 倍時薪。

一般情況下，晚上 18-22 時，4 個小時計算為半天工，以 1.5 倍時薪計算。通宵

以 2-3 倍計算。

（8）工作超時

過去兩年非常嚴重；通常延長一個鐘（即：5:30 ~ 6:30 pm）。

大家討論後比較同意：不同工種收工時間不同，有的工種確實有延長時間，但

是延長時間都有補水。

142

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（9） 培訓工人數量

由 CIC 培訓幾乎 100％；未培訓工人由親友介紹；面臨的挑戰是培訓場地有限。

參與者認為，ＣＩＣ培訓的工人的確很多，但是留下的、真正入行的人並不多，

事實上建造業從業人員的流失率非常高。入行工人多數經由熟人、朋友介紹，

招聘新人主要依靠人際網絡。

（10）建造業實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間的特點

體力工作；香港好多分包商，好多日薪工人；每個工種有不同的工作習慣；同

外部環境息息相關（日光&天氣）；工程存在風險，工地需要照看；工程限制（例

如：環保法例）。

參與者基本表示同意。對於坭水行業工人來說，“同外部環境息息相關”不是一定

的，由於有部分工作屬於室內工作，其實工作上也與外部環境關聯小。“每個工

種有不同工作習慣”這一點對於坭水行業內部來說來說，三種職能分別是批盪、

砌磚、鋪瓦，從事這些工作的工人工作習慣基本相似，但相比紮鐵等其他工種

存在不同。

（11） 招聘工人困難度

沒有新人入行；目前建造業是 10 年來最旺的；某些工種招聘困難（因為人工太

低，或人手短缺）；年輕人寧願選擇沒這麼辛苦的工作（即使人工低點）；未來

人手短缺都會越來越嚴重；CIC 學生到地盤之後還需要接受幾年的訓練；地盤

工作後流失率高。

基本同意，招聘上來說招新留舊都很難，如前面所說，入行多靠熟人介紹，人

際關係顯得很重要，因此職工會安排很多活動和會議，讓工人們可以通過活動

擴寬人脈網絡。

（12）怎樣吸引年輕人入行

先聘請後培訓；提升建造業形象；通過教育及父母引導；通過書本、教育進行

正面宣傳；給學生看到建造業遠景 & 長遠項目發展目標；放出來的工程量平

均一些；增加培訓學額；非強制性分包商註冊制度 & “標準合約”；保障工人薪

酬；改善地盤設施（工人升降機、沖涼設施、休息地方、流動廁所等）；提高工

人收入。

比較讚同的敘述按照重要性排列是:“提高工人收入”、“保障工人薪酬”、“改善地

盤設施”。

在“保障工人薪酬”方面，因為分判制度的存在，工程量越多，欠薪額度越大。雖

然仍有欠薪現象，但現在發生次數很少。

另外，技能組合，培養一人多技，也是增值自己的好方法。比如在坭水行業內，

143

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

學會三種項目包括批盪、砌磚、鋪瓦的技能，或者學會油漆工種的技能也是很

好的建議。

機器的使用並非解決問題的方法。多預製件技術的使用會提高生產效率，但會

導致工人開工時間减少，收入降低。另外，坭水行業很少使用機械操作，都是

人手進行。

（13）對“工地星期六休息”計劃的態度

A. 個人角度支持：緊急情況機會降低、請地盤工人容易點、工人效率會高點。

B. 現在不適合實施：未有共識；人手不夠、工人老化；影響工人收入；工期拉

長 & 成本上升；分包商風險變大；現在無法改變承判制度、月薪制，以及增

加人工、輸入外勞等。

C. 長遠來講可行：5〜10 年後推行；年輕人對生活和工作平衡要求較高；建設

需求減緩；社會共同承擔成本。

D. 中立：取決於工作需求，及各持份者能否達成共識。

參與者集體表示：完全不讚同該計劃實施，工人想返星期六（有些受天氣影響）、

甚至星期日。目前已經不能返足六日（目前每月能返 22 至 25 日工就已經很好

了，多數返 20 至 22 日），若再硬性規定周六不能返工，則減少了彈性選擇。極

端一點說，如果工作五日，可以拿七日薪，那麽對於該計劃的實施不會反對。

長期來看，將日薪制改為月薪制可以解決這個難題，屆時需要分判商在中標時

計算工期，並和工人簽訂合約。

（14）實施該計劃的顧慮

地盤工人每週不一定能返足工（根據工程週期做）；降低工人的工作彈性、工序

安排彈性降低；導致人手更加短缺；承包商出糧變複雜；承建商可能會聯合起

來反對；社會能否接受；行業代價 、社會成本；工地存在風險，需要有人照看；

很難控制 時間、質量；其他行業也會要求星期六休息；廣泛諮詢（有些人不願

認同確實存在這些顧慮，強制性的休息在現有制度下絕不同意。

144

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

有此限制）。

（15）同一公司長薪及日薪員工是否存在問題

不存在問題；對總承建商影響較大；實施有困難（大部分“日薪制”或者“件工

制”）；有些公司可能調整月薪制工人的人工。

未回答該問題。

（16）計劃實施影響

吸引年輕人入行、平衡工作生活；生產力不高（缺乏靈活性）；工期變長 & 影

響建成區居民生活；減少工人收入；用家共同負擔成本。

普遍認為該計劃的實施不能吸引年輕人入行，反而增加工作彈性容易吸引他

們。吸引年輕人入行要解決幾個問題：1）吸引年輕人入行，金錢不是主要問題，

家長對於建造業的傳統觀念以及對子女的溺愛阻止了年輕人入行；2）建造業工

作過於辛苦，工作量大超過許多人體能接受能力；3）保證薪資，保證工時，增

加收入；4）提高行業形象，保證一直有工開，讓普通工人看到未來發展前景。

（17）實施該計劃的建議

尊重分包商、工會意見；分階段實施；實行“標準合約”；僱傭多些直接勞工；

提高工人人工；放開限制（例如：工程投放時間、工程時間表）、短線工程通過

輸入外勞；長線工程培訓本地工人；改變承判制度；改善工作環境、改善其他

福利；宣傳行業正面形象；平衡行業男女比例；以改善公眾福利為切入點；降

低對密集勞動力的依賴度；提高生產率（通過獎勵總樓面面積，或客戶驅動方

式）；多供應些土地來做預製件工廠；從先進國家或地區吸取經驗；政府發展香

港建造業。

1）建議實施合約制（例如：按 10 個月來簽），以及月薪制或週薪制。分包商在

項目成功競拍之後，根據項目工期長短，以及項目數量，來決定跟工人簽訂多

久的合約。

2）特別不同意輸入外勞，認為輸入外勞最大的受益者是分判商，因為外勞工資

低，分判商可以大幅降低成本。除非外勞工資比本地工人高，否則存在不公平

競爭。

3）目前的勞工老齡化嚴重，工人短缺問題的根源主要是難以吸引新人入行，已

有工人大量流失。

4）取消分判制度，實行長工制。在層層分判的現有制度下，對於工人薪酬保障

不利，工人對於未來的工作機會信心不足，很難實現該計劃。

145

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

其他方面：“改善工作環境，宣傳行業正面形象，改善福利”等也屬於促進行業發

展的有效措施，提高人工。

（18） 輔助機構

需要多方配合；不會一蹴而就，很多細節需慢慢商量。 基本同意。

（19）不同工種特點（實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間）

已有標準工時議題，建造業返 8 個鐘/日；每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平水，

油漆開工晚些；彈性工作時間在建造業某些行業已經實行；有些工序（例如落

石屎，紮鐵）早上 7 點多開工，早放工；機電行業 9 點多返工，最遲放工（下

午 6 點多）；返工時間根據工序自然發生；有些很靠體力的工種（例如紮鐵）理

論上每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有 5 個鐘。

1）基本認同，坭水行業工作是一層層判落去的，多勞多得。扎鐵，釘板行業早

上 7 點半開工。

2）略有補充和修改的有：

“有些很靠體力的工種（例如扎鐵）理論上每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有 5

個鐘。”不同意這個敘述，每天工作應為 7 個半鐘，不可能僅 5 個小時。紮鐵工

種的特點是準時開工，準時收工。每天有半小時休息時間，可以自由分配，

其他建議及補充意見：

1）以前行業女性較少，近年逐年增加，同時有很多大學生也準備入行，說明行

業形象有所提升；

2）然而，目前實行該計劃仍然過於理想化原因在於：

a. 建造業制度缺陷：分判制度的存在導致工人被盤剝，同時薪酬沒有保障，

不利於吸引工人入行；

b. 行業形象差，工作量巨大超過負荷程度，導致家庭不能支持理解，建造業

146

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

工人流失率高；

c. 發展方向不明，今天做完不知道有沒有明天；

d. 有日薪工，這個計劃就不能實行，很多人甚至希望週日開工；

3）薪酬高，薪資有保障，職業發展有前景，安全等因素是年輕人入行的主要吸

引力，年輕人不願做散工；

4）裝修，維修工人是月薪制，但人工僅地盤工人薪資的 6-8 成，平均 1.2-1.3 萬；

5）坭水行業工人老化很嚴重；

6) 這個行業的問題在於工人流失率高，需要統計 CIC 培訓工人的流失率數據。

147

Appendix 18: Focus group meeting with Hong Kong Construction Association (HKCA)

Time: 10:00 am - 11:30 am

Date: 15 Dec 2014

Venue: 16/F, 180-182 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong

Facilitators: Prof. Y. H. Chiang & Prof. Francis Wong

Co-facilitators: Dr. Li Tao & Ms. Corrine Wu

Participants: Five members of HKCA

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（1）對建造業的印象

對建造業充滿信心；大量基建及私人項目開工；建造業人工高，就業需求大；讀

書不成可以考慮這個行業；建造業形象較差；體力勞動；工作環境汙糟；地產商

在市場上處於主導地位；以男性為主；年輕人不太願意入行；需大力發展職業教

育；須計劃每年穩定的工程量。

參會者認為關於學歷低的印象只能局限于工人。建造業很多工種都需要高學歷

及相關的知識技能，例如工程師或者品質監控（QS）專家。

這個計劃的實施應配合以下前提和社會現象：

1）當今社會需要不同的勞動力，可以由讀書多的人從事管理等白領工作，也

不能缺乏從事體力和技術工作的藍領工人；

2）接觸過許多年輕的建築業從業者，作為工人確實在沒有拿到特別高學歷的

時候獲得了 3-4 萬的月薪，足夠應付一般家庭支出，相比其他行業已算幸事；

3）建造業給了很多年輕人自己做老闆的機會；

4）可是當下的年輕人不單純滿足於這些優勢，畢竟老闆不是人人能做成，人

148

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

工高也不能犧牲生活品質；

5）客觀上很多專案即使法律規定允許週六施工，由於附近居民的投訴和環境

控管也不能週六開工，因此事實上週六建築工地不上班也可行；

6）問題不在於週六不開工，在於怎樣吸引更多年輕人入行；

7）是否實施這個計劃，在於整個社會的訴求。

該計劃符合從業人員對生活品質提高的要求，長期有利整個行業的發展。

（2）入行主要考量

朋友介紹；人工高；學手藝。 所有參與者基本讚同這兩條敘述。

（3）未來工作計劃

暫時做著先；繼續留在建造業。

（4）是否會介紹親戚朋友入行

會推薦朋友試下先；不想介紹兄弟入行（太辛苦）；介紹朋友入行（有個伴）。

參會者認為不想介紹自己親兄弟入行間接說明這個行業工作不易之處，因此在

香港很多年輕人都加入了服務業。

（5）建造業工人數量及比例

240,000 活躍工人/ 330,000/ 78,000 /316,300 （香港統計年鑑） / 336,002（工人註

冊處）;大約 85%僱傭於分包商/ 15%總承包商。

參會者認為每個資料都是正確的，只是代表不同的意義和解釋，可以作為參

考。每日在大工程（政府工程）地盤工作的人數為 6 萬幾。

（6）長薪員工每週工作日數

寫字樓 5 日；地盤 5.5~6 日；長工時薪制看他們意願；機電業大多 6 日/有些返長

短週。

參會者認為長薪制在行內一般稱為“月薪制”，一般指地盤的寫字樓僱員、工程

師、機械操作員、測量技工或者電工等技術類工種。

149

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

分為“日薪”和“月薪”；還有另一種員工稱為“長散”，例如機械操作工，機電類

工人。

（7）加班補水

白天 1.2 至 1.5 倍時薪；通宵更 2 倍時薪。

參會者認為通宵補水 2 倍的是地盤的寫字樓工人，其他地盤工人不止這個數目。

參會者表示簽約時需要長期夜班或者輪班夜班的工人基本執行補水通宵 2 倍時

薪，但是合約外、突發性短時間要求加班的時候，通宵工作補水是 4 倍時薪。

（8）工作超時

過去兩年非常嚴重；通常延長一個鐘（即：5:30 ~ 6:30 pm）。 參會者認為通常來說，6 點半下班非常正常。

（9） 培訓工人數量

由 CIC 培訓幾乎 100％；未培訓工人由親友介紹；面臨的挑戰是培訓場地有限。

參會者表示不同意 CIC 培訓了 100%的工人這一敘述，CIC 把培訓工人的責任

部分給了總承建商和分判商，承建商參與培訓計劃的工作也已經開始了近 2

年，已經培訓的人數約千人，包括了很多工種。具體操作是由 CIC 提供補貼給

承包商，而承包商須保證一定的合格率。

（10）建造業實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間的特點

體力工作；香港好多分包商，好多日薪工人；每個工種有不同的工作習慣；同外

部環境息息相關（日光&天氣）；工程存在風險，工地需要照看；工程限制（例如：

環保法例）。

參與者基本表示同意。

150

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（11） 招聘工人困難度

沒有新人入行；目前建造業是 10 年來最旺的；某些工種招聘困難（因為人工太

低，或人手短缺）；年輕人寧願選擇沒這麼辛苦的工作（即使人工低點）；未來人

手短缺都會越來越嚴重；CIC 學生到地盤之後還需要接受幾年的訓練；地盤工作

後流失率高。

參會者認為人工低這個現象目前已經不存在了。

某些情況下可以理解這一點，因為某些工種的工人（例如：油漆工）工資相比

其他工種確實較低，引發該工種工人進去其他高收入工種，而油漆工就會面臨

短缺。

平均工資不算低，某些政府工程項目的地盤工作環境與歐洲的建築工地條件都

接近了，隨著時間推移相信將來會更好。私人樓宇的工作條件比較差。

（12）怎樣吸引年輕人入行

先聘請後培訓；提升建造業形象；通過教育及父母引導；通過書本、教育進行正

面宣傳；給學生看到建造業遠景 & 長遠項目發展目標；放出來的工程量平均一

些；增加培訓學額；非強制性分包商註冊制度 & “標準合約”；保障工人薪酬；

改善地盤設施（工人升降機、沖涼設施、休息地方、流動廁所等）；提高工人收

入。

參會者認為這個行業傷亡率確實很高。家長接觸電子媒體、報紙後容易對建造

業產生負面情緒。

香港應學習國外，不要存在職業歧視。其實農夫、建築工人一樣需要技術和知

識，地盤工作不等於低學問。老齡化和低生育率確實影響了香港的勞動力供

應，希望社會宣傳、正面鼓勵，讓父母不要反對年輕人入行。

系統設計與“一工多能”相矛盾。現在承判制度下專業化分工太嚴重，導致工人

無法“一工多能”。專業分類和註冊認證在香港也實行過，但是工人面臨多科目

考試的壓力，在繁重的體力勞動外很難承受。同時，在市場旺的時候，工人根

本無需考試就可選擇高薪工種，也沒有精力考證，因而認證發牌的制度可行性

151

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

不高。

“非強制性分包商註冊制度” & “標準合約”這個敘述不是很清晰，應敘述為標準

雇傭合同。

“保障工人薪酬”方面近幾年改善很多，欠薪是 6 到 7 年前的事情。

關於改善地盤設施，不但承建商有責任，業主和規劃者也應該承擔責任，業主

應該像實施 pay for safety 那樣實施 pay for welfare。承建商須將這些福利條件寫

到合約裡。在招標階段就將福利成本計入到整個成本中。規劃者在設計上留出

空間便於建造相關設施。

地盤設施不完善是市場競爭的結果，需要將福利成本計入合約成本中。

目前不是“提高工人工資“而是提高獲得工資的穩定度。年輕人不想做“日工”或

“散工”。

（13）對“工地星期六休息”計劃的態度

A. 個人角度支持：緊急情況機會降低、請地盤工人容易點、工人效率會高點。

B. 現在不適合實施：未有共識；人手不夠、工人老化；影響工人收入；工期拉

參與者集體表示應該實行該計劃，原因如下：

1）香港建造業勞動時間從一開始的 2 星期 13 日工，發展到 12 日，再到現在

的 5.5 日一周，體現了時代的進步；

152

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

長 & 成本上升；分包商風險變大；現在無法改變承判制度、月薪制，以及增加

人工、輸入外勞等。

C. 長遠來講可行：5〜10 年後推行；年輕人對生活和工作平衡要求較高；建設需

求減緩；社會共同承擔成本。

D. 中立：取決於工作需求，及各持份者能否達成共識。

2）在不影響工人既得利益的大前提下，星期六地盤不工作是一種新的理念和

進步的計劃；

3）每個新計劃的實施，離不開政府立法。整個討論和研究的時間可達 2-3 年，

建造業完全可以利用這個時間去實現計劃的順利執行。市場會自動調節薪資，

工資收入會完全體現勞動價值；

4）建造業在香港有重要作用，例如帶動其他產業的發展（例如：運輸業，餐

飲業等）。面對新的時代要求和公眾期望，政府應該採納新理念，這才是香港

作為一個先進社會的表率行為。

談到部分反對意見時，參與者表示:

1）35-50 歲的中老年工人也許會極力反對，因為他們有生活壓力，希望利用彈

性工作制多掙錢，抵抗生活壓力；

2）然而年輕人更希望得到的是生活品質，重視休閒時間、能與社會交流。從

一個長遠的角度看，這個計劃的實行有利於吸引年輕人入行，保持行業勞動力

新鮮的血液；

3）香港不同於新加坡等國家有寬鬆的外勞引進政策，因此應該重視吸納本地

勞動力的手段。例如，新加坡在緬甸設立培訓中心，培訓緬甸勞工，再引入新

加坡工作 3 年，最後由工人選擇是留下還是離開。如果工人選擇回緬甸的話，

已經可以成為緬甸的中產階級。

153

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（14）實施該計劃的顧慮

地盤工人每週不一定能返足工（根據工程週期做）；降低工人的工作彈性、工序

安排彈性降低；導致人手更加短缺；承包商出糧變複雜；承建商可能會聯合起來

反對；社會能否接受；行業代價 、社會成本；工地存在風險，需要有人照看；

很難控制 時間、質量；其他行業也會要求星期六休息；廣泛諮詢（有些人不願有

此限制）。

參會者認為“承建商可能會聯合起來反對”這一說法不一定，從商會的角度來說

是支持該計劃的。不可否認個別工會如“打樁工會”會有些反對，因為其工作要

求連續性，從技術上來說實現該計劃有難度。但是在設計該計劃時，某些工種

可以獲得一些特殊的豁免。

（15）同一公司長薪及日薪員工是否存在問題

不存在問題；對總承建商影響較大；實施有困難（大部分“日薪制”或者“件工制”）；

有些公司可能調整月薪制工人的人工。

未回答該問題。

（16）計劃實施影響

吸引年輕人入行、平衡工作生活；生產力不高（缺乏靈活性）；工期變長 & 影響

建成區居民生活；減少工人收入；用家共同負擔成本。

參會者認為“工期變長 & 影響建成區居民生活”表達不清晰。整個社會普遍週

六大多都是不上班的，建造業週六不上班其實對於社區的居民生活是有積極作

用的。

（17）實施該計劃的建議

尊重分包商、工會意見；分階段實施；實行“標準合約”；僱傭多些直接勞工；提

高工人人工；放開限制（例如：工程投放時間、工程時間表）、短線工程通過輸

入外勞；長線工程培訓本地工人；改變承判制度；改善工作環境、改善其他福利；

宣傳行業正面形象；平衡行業男女比例；以改善公眾福利為切入點；降低對密集

勞動力的依賴度；提高生產率（通過獎勵總樓面面積，或客戶驅動方式）；多供

應些土地來做預製件工廠；從先進國家或地區吸取經驗；政府發展香港建造業。

參會者認為“實行‘標準合約’”表述應補充為實行“標準雇傭合約”。

1）“僱傭多些直接勞工”、“改變承判制度”：一個工程需要不同的工種，直接勞

工聘用起來低效率，世界各地一般都實行分判制度，香港也不例外；

2）“提高工人人工”應改為“保持原有人工，不減少工人既得利益，穩定他們的

收入”。

154

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

不能僱傭多些直接勞工是歷史遺留問題，也是由工程量的不連續性導致的。香

港的承判制度已經發展得很成熟。懂得管理並分配直接勞工的人越來越少。

（18） 輔助機構

需要多方配合；不會一蹴而就，很多細節需慢慢商量。 基本同意。

（19）不同工種特點（實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間）

已有標準工時議題，建造業返 8 個鐘/日；每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平水，

油漆開工晚些；彈性工作時間在建造業某些行業已經實行；有些工序（例如落石

屎，紮鐵）早上 7 點多開工，早放工；機電行業 9 點多返工，最遲放工（下午 6

點多）；返工時間根據工序自然發生；有些很靠體力的工種（例如紮鐵）理論上

每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有 5 個鐘。

其他意見及建議：

參會者表示商會支持該計劃的實施，政府應該立法；政府每年推行的工程量應

該有計劃（例如：在工序、工期方面），才可以保證計劃順利實施。

在品質、環保、安檢等要求提高的前提下，工人需求量更多。但這是短期的勞

動力短缺，可以用輸入技術外勞的方法解決，但是不能成為不執行該計劃的考

慮，因為香港建造業需要補充新鮮血液，而整個年輕勞動力市場提出了新的要

求，建造業的制度應該順應這個要求。

應以政府工程作為推行該計劃的示範，先試行、檢測是否可行。

155

156

Appendix 19: Focus group meeting with Professional Institutions, Government & Developers

Time: 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm

Date: 17 Dec 2014

Venue: ZS721, 7/F, Department of Building and Real Estate, South Tower, Z Block, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Facilitators: Prof. Y. H. Chiang & Prof. Francis Wong

Co-facilitators: Dr. Li Tao & Ms. Corrine Wu

Participants: 4 participants from professional institutions, 1 participant from the government, and another participant from one developer

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（1）對建造業的印象

對建造業充滿信心；大量基建及私人項目開工；建造業人工高，就業需求大；

讀書不成可以考慮這個行業；建造業形象較差；體力勞動；工作環境汙糟；地

產商在市場上處於主導地位；以男性為主；年輕人不太願意入行；需大力發展

職業教育；須計劃每年穩定的工程量。 參與者基本認同。

（2）入行主要考量

朋友介紹；人工高；學手藝。

（3）未來工作計劃

暫時做著先；繼續留在建造業。

（4）是否會介紹親戚朋友入行

157

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

會推薦朋友試下先；不想介紹兄弟入行（太辛苦）；介紹朋友入行（有個伴）。

（5）建造業工人數量及比例

240,000 活躍工人/ 330,000/ 78,000 /316,300 （香港統計年鑑） / 336,002（工人

註冊處）;大約 85%僱傭於分包商/ 15%總承包商。

（6）長薪員工每週工作日數

寫字樓 5 日；地盤 5.5~6 日；長工時薪制看他們意願；機電業大多 6 日/有些返

長短週。

參與者基本認同。

（7）加班補水

白天 1.2 至 1.5 倍時薪；通宵更 2 倍時薪。

（8）工作超時

過去兩年非常嚴重；通常延長一個鐘（即：5:30 ~ 6:30 pm）。

（9） 培訓工人數量

由 CIC 培訓幾乎 100％；未培訓工人由親友介紹；面臨的挑戰是培訓場地有限。

（10）建造業實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間的特點

體力工作；香港好多分包商，好多日薪工人；每個工種有不同的工作習慣；同

外部環境息息相關（日光&天氣）；工程存在風險，工地需要照看；工程限制（例

如：環保法例）。

158

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（11） 招聘工人困難度

沒有新人入行；目前建造業是 10 年來最旺的；某些工種招聘困難（因為人工太

低，或人手短缺）；年輕人寧願選擇沒這麼辛苦的工作（即使人工低點）；未來

人手短缺都會越來越嚴重；CIC 學生到地盤之後還需要接受幾年的訓練；地盤

工作後流失率高。

（12）怎樣吸引年輕人入行

先聘請後培訓；提升建造業形象；通過教育及父母引導；通過書本、教育進行

正面宣傳；給學生看到建造業遠景 & 長遠項目發展目標；放出來的工程量平

均一些；增加培訓學額；非強制性分包商註冊制度 & “標準合約”；保障工人薪

酬；改善地盤設施（工人升降機、沖涼設施、休息地方、流動廁所等）；提高工

人收入。

專業機構參會者指出其公司都是週一到週五返工，週六返工可以補水雙倍。 但

是年輕人或者學徒仍然不想做辛苦的事情。想做寫字樓的很多，技術學徒全部

走了。目前技術員和師傅老齡化嚴重，平均年齡 50 幾歲。其公司內部做法是：

如果學徒升到師傅或技術專家需要考牌或內部考試，而這些資格又是社會認同

的，並且他們工資也達到與同等白領管理人員相等、甚至更高的水準，這樣一

些不想過多從事文書工作的年輕人就會被留在技術工藝的職業發展途徑中。

新一代不想做很辛苦的工作，個人責任心也是一個問題，有的人週六不用返工

都主動加班。另外，用新的技術手段幫助年輕人瞭解建造業不只要求單純的體

力勞動，是有技術挑戰的，也是一個鼓勵的方法。父母的影響也很大，社會家

庭對於地盤工人普遍存在歧視。

159

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

（13）對“工地星期六休息”計劃的態度

A. 個人角度支持：緊急情況機會降低、請地盤工人容易點、工人效率會高點。

B. 現在不適合實施：未有共識；人手不夠、工人老化；影響工人收入；工期拉

長 & 成本上升；分包商風險變大；現在無法改變承判制度、月薪制，以及增

加人工、輸入外勞等。

C. 長遠來講可行：5〜10 年後推行；年輕人對生活和工作平衡要求較高；建設

需求減緩；社會共同承擔成本。

D. 中立：取決於工作需求，及各持份者能否達成共識。

專業機構參會者認為：

1）香港建造業工人的工作時間很多是早八晚七。工作不止八個鐘，非常辛苦，

理應獲得一些休息時間。從長遠來看支持這個計劃。

2）但考慮到做少 1 日，拉長工期，發展商可能會有很大意見。3）從發展商角

度，這個計劃犧牲的利益會成為轉嫁給整個社會的成本。最直接就是導致開發

商成本增加。最後會增加終端消費者的負擔，購房成本會提高。

4）這個計劃在滿足條件下可以實行。這個條件就是社會富裕，有能力承擔一些

損失的時候。長遠來看，同意實施這個計劃。但是現階段社會不具備這個條件。

5）不同意年輕人入行是完全因為地盤需要週六返工的問題。如果行業勞動力短

缺，暫時可以輸入外勞。入了這個行業，一般人都有心理準備，知道面臨的問

題。

6）這個計劃可行性較低的原因還有：這個計劃實際限制了地盤開工的日期。很

多行業週六都要返工，為何建造業需要特殊？同時，建造業工種複雜，工序、

天氣問題都會導致不能完全固定週一到週五返工。

7）這個計劃對電機工程機構來說(例如：中電)影響很大。電機工程常常需要深

入社區或學校，而社區居民或學校在平時對於施工非常敏感。為防止施工噪音

等問題對居民和學校等服務區的影響，電機工程在平日（週一至五）進行存在

不小難度，只能選在週末、大家都放假的時候進行。如果週六、日不能工作的

話，中電工作將存在非常大的困難。當然週六的工資相對高些，約為平時 2 倍。

160

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

8）一個年輕工程師入不入行，不是看週六工不工作的。金融界就是很典型的例

子，雖然很辛苦還是很多人爭搶著入行，根本原因是社會地位和薪金收入吸引

力的問題。從我瞭解的情況來看，很多年輕人都是看薪酬和晉升的問題。電力

行業工人的薪酬目前是日薪 800-880 元。近期行業蓬勃，從 07 年 600 多日薪，

上升到現在。但是始終礙於過於辛苦和社會形象的問題，導致年輕人不肯入行

或者入行很短時間就轉行。

發展商參會者認為：

1）從發展商角度來說，因為與客戶簽過合約，商業建築的建設時間一定要滿足

合約時間。所以，這樣的計劃對開發商是有難度的。

2）看不到這是個很大的誘因使得年輕人入行。實際上，發展商由於合約時間的

限制，反而是平時加班的反對聲音比較大。每週五天返工可行，但是不一定週

六放假，真正的放假時間是由工人自己去選擇的。

專業機構參會者認為：

1）撇開難題和阻礙，從整個社會前進的角度來說，當然支持；2）還應該問一

個重要的問題：除了以上所提的阻礙，還有多少比例的人支持該計劃?

政府機構參會者認為這個課題值得業界繼續討論，政府並沒有特別的偏向立

161

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

場。政府正全面推行工人註冊制度，透過立法確認建造業工人的技術水平，藉

以提高他們的職業地位。

（14）實施該計劃的顧慮

地盤工人每週不一定能返足工（根據工程週期做）；降低工人的工作彈性、工序

安排彈性降低；導致人手更加短缺；承包商出糧變複雜；承建商可能會聯合起

來反對；社會能否接受；行業代價 、社會成本；工地存在風險，需要有人照看；

很難控制 時間、質量；其他行業也會要求星期六休息；廣泛諮詢（有些人不願

有此限制）。

專業機構參會者認為：

1）必須週六開工的工序是存在的。由於工序上的問題，其他的工序做完，剛好

到週六可以做這個工序，例如落石屎或者打樁。如果間隔時間太長，不利於工

程。

2）大部分的工人不覺得週六返工有問題，可能已經習慣了。

3）很多工人是日薪制，實施該計劃可能影響他們的收入。除了給予福利、社會

認同，職業發展計劃才是關鍵。週六不返工不是有效手段。

4）建立真正有社會認知度的分級證書或者考試是必須的。目前系統裡的 AS 相

比其他行業同等職稱的社會認同度低，讓人覺得即使獲得資格也低人一等。

5）這個政策是一個象徵性的福利，對於建造業工人不是真正的實惠。

（15）同一公司長薪及日薪員工是否存在問題

不存在問題；對總承建商影響較大；實施有困難（大部分“日薪制”或者“件工

制”）；有些公司可能調整月薪制工人的人工。 參與者基本認同。

（16）計劃實施影響

162

Findings (in-depth interviews) Verification (focus group)

吸引年輕人入行、平衡工作生活；生產力不高（缺乏靈活性）；工期變長 & 影

響建成區居民生活；減少工人收入；用家共同負擔成本。

（17）實施該計劃的建議

尊重分包商、工會意見；分階段實施；實行“標準合約”；僱傭多些直接勞工；

提高工人人工；放開限制（例如：工程投放時間、工程時間表）、短線工程通過

輸入外勞；長線工程培訓本地工人；改變承判制度；改善工作環境、改善其他

福利；宣傳行業正面形象；平衡行業男女比例；以改善公眾福利為切入點；降

低對密集勞動力的依賴度；提高生產率（通過獎勵總樓面面積，或客戶驅動方

式）；多供應些土地來做預製件工廠；從先進國家或地區吸取經驗；政府發展香

港建造業。

專業機構參會者認為：

1）除了工時，工作環境太重要了。傳統工地環境特別差，如果環境改善，可能

會吸引到年輕人入行。

2）比較可行的方法是，在獲得環保批文前提下，週一到週日都可以返工，工人

可以根據自己情況調休。

（18） 輔助機構：需要多方配合；不會一蹴而就，很多細節需慢慢商量。

參與者基本認同。

（19）不同工種特點（實施彈性工作時間 / 壓縮工作時間）

已有標準工時議題，建造業返 8 個鐘/日；每個工種有不同的習慣，例如：平水，

油漆開工晚些；彈性工作時間在建造業某些行業已經實行；有些工序（例如落

石屎，紮鐵）早上 7 點多開工，早放工；機電行業 9 點多返工，最遲放工（下

午 6 點多）；返工時間根據工序自然發生；有些很靠體力的工種（例如紮鐵）理

論上每天返工 8 個鐘，實際上也就只有 5 個鐘。

163

Appendix 20: Questionnaire survey with construction workers

於香港建造業實施“工地星期六休息”可行性及實施策略之調查 I 香港建造業現時面臨勞工短缺及人口老化問題。為緩解勞工短缺的壓力、吸引更

多年輕人入行、提高工人的生活質量，香港建造商會提出了“工地星期六休息” 的初步構思。為此，建造業議會委託香港理工大學研究團隊對該構思的可行性及實

施策略進行研究及調查，及促進行業廣泛的討論，以推動香港建造業的可持續發

展。 此問卷對象為現時受僱於建造業的僱員，不包括退休人士。該統計調查所搜集的

資料將嚴加保密，及只會用於研究用途。謹此感謝閣下對是次研究的支持。

第一部分：就業狀況 A1. 你是長薪制還是日薪制僱員？ 長薪制 日薪制 A2. 你從事地盤還是寫字樓工作？ 地盤

寫字樓

A3. 你是否同時為兩個或以上的雇主工作？ 是

否

A4. 你從事的工種？ 扎鐵 落石屎 油漆 機電 其他，請註明： A5. 職位： 中工 大工 師傅 其他，請註明： A6. 你加入建造業多久？ 年 月

第二部分：工時狀況 B1. 平均每星期工作日數： （日）

旺季（若適用）： （日） 淡季（若適用）： （日）

B2. 平均每日工作時數： （小時）（包括休息和吃飯時間）

旺季（若適用）： （小時） 淡季（若適用）： （小時）

164

B3. 平日工作時間：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时）

旺季工作時間（若適用）：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时）

淡季工作時間（若適用）：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时） B4. 星期六是否返工？ 是 至 （請註明時段） 否

B5. 星期日是否返工？ 是 至 （請註明時段） 否

B6. 星期六或星期日返工原因？ 自己決定 雇主要求 其他，請註明： B7. 超時工作（即每天工作超過 8 小時）原因？ 自己決定 雇主要求 其他，請註明： B8. 超時工資是基本工資的幾倍?（若適用） 下午 5:00 或 6:00 至 凌晨 12:00 凌晨 12:00 至 上午 8:00 或 9:00 其他（若適用） B9. 你從事的工作是否實行彈性工作時間（即：完成規定工作或固定工時前提

下，可以自由選擇返/放工時間）或壓縮工作週（即：少於六天工作但每天工時

長一些）？ 是（轉至 B10） 否

B10. 若是，請說明施行辦法： B11. 你是否希望將每星期工作時間壓縮為 5 日？（若現時每星期工作超過 5 日） 是 否

第三部分：對現時工時及回報的滿意度 C1. 你認為現時每星期工時： 太長 適中 太短

165

C2. 就現時工時，你對所得回報的滿意度為（1 到 5 分，5 分為滿分）： 分 （“回報”包括薪酬、福利及職業發展機會） C2.1 薪酬： 分 C2.2 福利： 分 C2.3 職業發展機會： 分 C2.4 其他（請註明： ）： 分

第四部分：實施“工地星期六休息” 構思 D1. 你是否希望實施“工地星期六休息” 構思？ 是（轉至 D2） 否（轉至 D3）

D2. 希望實施的原因是什么？（可多選） 週末多點休息時間 多點個人活動（例如：娛樂）時間 更多與家人或朋友相處 多點進修時間 其他，請註明： D3. 不希望實施的顧慮是什麼？（可多選） 影響原有收入（註：建造商會表明工人收入不會因施行該構思而減少） 選擇彈性降低 希望在建設高峰期多賺錢 工種性質，要求週末工作 其他，請註明： D4. 對於實施該計劃的建議？（即：如何能成功實施該計劃）（可多選） 採用新技術提高生產力 分階段實施該計劃 僱傭多些直接勞工 需要多方配合，例如：工會、承建商、發展商 其他，請註明： D5. 怎樣吸引更多人（特別是年輕人）入行？（可多選） 提升建造業形象 提高工人收入 改善地盤設施 保證工人原有收入不變 提供職業晉昇機會 提供工藝進修機會 宣傳建造業遠景及長遠發展目標 每年建設工程量平均一些 其他，請註明：

166

第五部分：個人資料 E1. 性別 男 女

E2. 年齡： 歲 E3. 平均每月收入：HKD /月 E4. 聯絡電話： 或 電郵（若適用）： E5. 填寫問卷日期： 年 月 日

- 完 -

167

Appendix 21: Questionnaire survey with construction trainees

於香港建造業實施“工地星期六休息”可行性及實施策略之調查 II 香港建造業現時面臨勞工短缺及人口老化問題。為緩解勞工短缺的壓力、吸引更

多年輕人入行、提高工人的生活質量，香港建造商會提出了“工地星期六休息” 的初步構思。為此，建造業議會委託香港理工大學研究團隊對該構思的可行性及實

施策略進行研究及調查，及促進行業廣泛的討論，以推動香港建造業的可持續發

展。 此問卷對象為現時正在接受建造業訓練的學員。該統計調查所搜集的資料將嚴加

保密，及只會用於研究用途。謹此感謝閣下對是次研究的支持。

第一部分：就業計劃 A1. 你接受建造業培訓的主要考量是什麼？（可多選） 朋友介紹 人工高 學手藝 其他，請註明： A2. 你現時是否在建造業工作？ 是（轉至 A3 及 A4） 否，現時沒有工作（轉至 A5） 否，現時在其他行業工作，請註明行業： （轉至 A5） A3.你現正接受訓練的工種是什麼？ 扎鐵 落石屎 油漆 機電 其他，請註明： A4. 如果現時在建造業工作，你加入建造業多久？ 年 月 A5. 你之前從事什麼行業？ 餐飲業 零售業 物流業 其他，請註明： A6. 你未來是否會在建築業工作？ 不確定 肯定會 不會 A7. 你是否會介紹親戚朋友入行？ 肯定會 不會

其他，請註明：

第二部分：工時狀況（適用於現時有工作的人回答） B1. 平均每星期工作日數： （日）

旺季（若適用）： （日） 淡季（若適用）： （日）

168

B2. 平均每日工作時數： （小時）（包括休息和吃飯時間） 旺季（若適用）： （小時） 淡季（若適用）： （小時）

B3. 平日工作時間：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时）

旺季工作時間（若適用）：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时）

淡季工作時間（若適用）：上午 點 至 下午 點 期間休息總時數： （小时） B4. 星期六是否返工？ 是 至 （請註明時段） 否

B5. 星期日是否返工？ 是 至 （請註明時段） 否

B6. 星期六或星期日返工原因？ 自己決定 雇主要求 其他，請註明： B7. 超時工作（即每天工作超過 8 小時）原因？ 自己決定 雇主要求 其他，請註明： B8. 超時工資是基本工資的幾倍?（若適用） 下午 5:00 或 6:00 至 凌晨 12:00 凌晨 12:00 至 上午 8:00 或 9:00 其他（若適用） B9. 你從事的工作是否實行彈性工作時間（即：完成規定工作或固定工時前提

下，可以自由選擇返/放工時間）或壓縮工作週（即：少於六天工作但每天工時

長一些）？ 是（轉至 B10） 否

B10. 若是，請說明施行辦法： B11. 你是否希望將每星期工作時間壓縮為 5 日？（若現時每星期工作超過 5 日） 是 否

169

第三部分：對現時工時及回報的滿意度（適用於現時有工作的人回答） C1. 你認為現時每星期工時： 太長 適中 太短

C2. 就現時工時，你對所得回報的滿意度為（1 到 5 分，5 分為滿分）： 分 （“回報”包括薪酬、福利及職業發展機會） C2.1 薪酬： 分 C2.2 福利： 分 C2.3 職業發展機會： 分 C2.4 其他（請註明： ）： 分

第四部分：實施“工地星期六休息” 構思 D1. 你是否希望實施“工地星期六休息” 構思？ 是（轉至 D2） 否（轉至 D3）

D2. 希望實施的原因是什么？（可多選） 週末多點休息時間 多點個人活動（例如：娛樂）時間 更多與家人或朋友相處 多點進修時間 其他，請註明： D3. 不希望實施的顧慮是什麼？（可多選） 影響原有收入（註：建造商會表明工人收入不會因施行該構思而減少） 選擇彈性降低 希望在建設高峰期多賺錢 工種性質，要求週末工作 其他，請註明： D4. 對於實施該計劃的建議？（即：如何能成功實施該計劃）（可多選） 採用新技術提高生產力 分階段實施該計劃 僱傭多些直接勞工 需要多方配合，例如：工會、承建商、發展商 其他，請註明： D5. 怎樣吸引更多人（特別是年輕人）入行？（可多選） 提升建造業形象 提高工人收入 改善地盤設施 保證工人原有收入不變 提供職業晉昇機會 提供工藝進修機會 宣傳建造業遠景及長遠發展目標 每年建設工程量平均一些 其他，請註明：

170

第五部分：個人資料

E1. 性別 男 女

E2. 年齡： 歲 E3. 平均每月收入：HKD /月（若適用） E4. 聯絡電話： 或 電郵（若適用）： E5. 填寫問卷日期： 年 月 日

- 完 -

171

Appendix 22: Questionnaire survey with high-school students

於香港建造業實施“工地星期六休息”可行性及實施策略之調查 III 香港建造業現時面臨勞工短缺及人口老化問題。為緩解勞工短缺的壓力、吸引更

多年輕人入行、提高工人的生活質量，香港建造商會提出了“工地星期六休息” 的初步構思。為此，建造業議會委託香港理工大學研究團隊對該構思的可行性及實

施策略進行研究及調查，及促進行業廣泛的討論，以推動香港建造業的可持續發

展。 此問卷對象為可能加入建造業的學生。該統計調查所搜集的資料將嚴加保密，及

只會用於研究用途。謹此感謝閣下對是次研究的支持。

第一部分：就業計劃 A1. 你是否打算加入建造業? 是（轉至 A2） 否（轉至 A3） 不確定，請註明原因： A2. 打算加入建造業的原因是什麼？（可多選） 朋友介紹 收入高 學手藝 其他，請註明： A3. 不打算加入建造業的原因是什麼？（可多選） 工作太辛苦 行業形象欠佳 職業發展不好 收入不高 父母不同意 沒興趣 其他，請註明：

第二部分：實施“工地星期六休息” 構思 B1. 如果工地落實星期六休息的構思, 會不會增加你入行興趣? 是（轉至 D2） 否（轉至 D3）

B2. 希望實施的原因是什么？（可多選） 週末多點休息時間 多點個人活動（例如：娛樂）時間 更多與家人或朋友相處 多點進修時間 其他，請註明： B3. 不希望實施的顧慮是什麼？（可多選） 影響原有收入（註：建造商會表明工人收入不會因施行該構思而減少） 選擇彈性降低 希望在建設高峰期多賺錢 工種性質，要求週末工作 其他，請註明：

172

B4. 對於實施該計劃的建議？（即：如何能成功實施該計劃）（可多選） 採用新技術提高生產力 分階段實施該計劃 僱傭多些直接勞工 需要多方配合，例如：工會、承建商、發展商 其他，請註明： B5. 怎樣吸引更多人（特別是年輕人）入行？（可多選） 提升建造業形象 提高工人收入 改善地盤設施 保證工人原有收入不變 提供職業晉昇機會 提供工藝進修機會 宣傳建造業遠景及長遠發展目標 每年建設工程量平均一些 其他，請註明：

第三部分：個人資料 C1. 性別 男 女

C2. 年齡： 歲 C3. 平均每月收入：HKD /月（若適用） C4. 聯絡電話： 或 電郵（若適用）： C5. 填寫問卷日期： 年 月 日

- 完 -

173

Appendix 23: Feedback form for the consultation forum (English Version)

Feedback Form for the Consultation Forum The Feasibility and Implementation Strategy for “No-Saturday-Site-Work” in the

Hong Kong Construction Industry

Part A: The initiative of “No-Saturday-Site-Work”

A1. Do you think this initiative is feasible? Yes (Please go to A2) No (Please go to A3)

A2. Why do you think this initiative is feasible? (Please tick all that are

applicable) Workers will have better work-life balance.

It will attract more young people to join the construction industry.

It will improve the image of the construction industry.

It will contribute to the sustainable development of the construction industry.

It will induce more labour-saving construction technologies and innovations.

Others, please specify:

A3. Why do you think this initiative is NOT feasible? (Please tick all that are

applicable) The income of construction workers may be reduced.

Construction workers need the flexibility of working on Saturdays or not.

Contractors need the flexibility of scheduling their works on Saturdays.

It will lead to project delays. Developers and contractors may oppose.

It will lead to higher construction costs. Developers and contractors may oppose.

It will prolong the disturbance to residents nearby due to project delays.

End users and the community at-large will ultimately need to bear the extra costs.

There is a large volume of projects going on.

Thank you for attending this consultation forum. We would appreciate it very much if you could share with us your valuable views concerning the captioned initiative. Please complete this form and submit it to our staff before you leave the Forum. Thank you very much.

174

There would be little effect on attracting young people to join the construction

industry.

Others, please specify:

A4. What are the measures to make this initiative implementable? (Please choose

that are applicable, prioritize them, e.g., 1 as the 1st priority, and 2 as the 2nd

priority, etc., and fill the number in respective parentheses.) Increase productivity through new

technologies to reduce the need of labour

( )

Implement in phases and conduct

pilot study ( )

More direct labour paid with monthly

salaries ( )

Alternate-Saturday-off or

half-day-off on Saturdays ( )

Guarantee workers’ incomes ( ) Voluntary participation in this

initiative ( )

Specify it in contract as client requirement

( )

Import labour for certain trades

( )

Collaboration among various

stakeholders, e.g., workers’ union,

contractors and developers ( )

Implement this initiative only

during off-season ( )

Others ( ), please specify:

Part B: Labour shortage in the construction industry

B1. How to attract young people to join the construction industry, and to ease the

problems of ageing workers and labour shortage? (Please tick all that are

applicable) Improve the image of the industry Increase the income of workers

Improve the site conditions and facilities Improve the welfare of workers

Direct labour paid with monthly salaries Good opportunities of training

Improve the social status of workers Increase job stability and security

Promote the job prospect of site works Stabilized workloads for the

industry

175

Others, please specify:

Part C: Personal particulars

C1. Gender: Male Female

C2. Age:

C3. Relevant working experience: years

C4. Job nature (Please circle as appropriate):

Construction / Consultancy / Public Sector / Development / Others, please specify:

C5. Position:

C6. Company: _______________________________

-Thank you-

176

Appendix 24: Feedback form for the consultation forum (Chinese Version)

諮詢會反饋表 ——於香港建造業實施“工地星期六休息”可行性及實施策略

A 部分：“工地星期六休息” 構思

A1.您認為“工地星期六休息” 構思是否可行？

是（轉至 A2） 否（轉至 A3）

A2.您認為可行的原因是什么？（可多選）

有利於平衡建造工人的工作與生活

可吸引更多年輕人進入建造業

可提升建造業形象

有利於建造業可持續發展

將促使建造業採用節約勞工的技術與創新方法

其他，請註明：

A3.您認為不可行的原因是什麼？（可多選）

可能減少建造工人的收入

建造工人需要有選擇週六是否開工的彈性

承包商需要有週六調度工作的彈性

可能導致工程延期，開發商及承建商將反對

可能導致工程成本增加，開發商及承建商將反對

工程延期將打擾周邊市民的生活

最終用家和社會各界將承擔額外的費用

近幾年工程量太大

這個構思對於吸引年輕人入行作用不大

其他，請註明：

感謝閣下前來參加是次諮詢會，為更好的傾聽您的意見，我們設計了這份反

饋表，麻煩您花幾分鐘時間完成，且在離開前交予我們的工作人員。謹此感

謝阁下對是次研究的支持。

177

A4.能促使該構思可施行的措施有哪些？（可多選，且給您的選擇排序，例如：1

代表最重要，2 代表第二重要，以此類推；請將序號填入括號內）

採用新技術，提高生產力，降低對

勞工的需求（ ）

分階段實施，開展試點研究（ ）

僱傭多些直接勞工，且採用月薪制

（ ）

採用週六休息半天，或長短週的方

法（ ）

保證工人收入（ ） 自願參與（ ）

在合約中明確為客戶要求 某些工種輸入勞工（ ）

需多方配合，例如:工會、承建商、

發展商（ ）

僅在淡季實施該構思（ ）

其他（ ），請註明：

B 部分：建造業勞工短缺問題

B1.怎樣吸引更多年輕人入行、緩解建造業勞工短缺及老齡化問題？（可多選）

提升建造業形象 提高工人收入

改善地盤設施與環境 提高工人福利水平

僱傭直接勞工，且採用月薪制 提供良好的培訓機會

提高建造工人的社會地位 增加工作的穩定性和安全性

推廣地盤工作的就業前景 穩定建造業的工作量

其他，請註明：

C 部分：個人資料

C1.性別: 男 女

C2.年齡：

C3.相關工作經驗： 年

C4.工作性質（請在適用的選項畫圈）：

建造/ 顧問公司/公營機構/ 開發商/ 若其他，請註明：

C5.職位：

C6.公司名稱：

-謝謝-

178

Appendix 25: Notes of the consultation forum

Time: 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm

Date: 26 Mar 2015

Venue: M1603, Li Ka Shing Tower, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,

Kowloon, Hong Kong

Discussants: Prof. Y. H. Chiang & Prof. Francis Wong

Notes:

第一位發言者：我在建築公司做，關於第一個問題，這個計劃是不是 feasible, 我有一些

看法。蔣教授提出了兩點，一是工人老化，二是年輕人入行率低，看到初步研究的結果，

如果實施五天工作計劃，原本不考慮入行的人都會考慮入行，那麼就說明這個辦法是有

效果的。（Prof. Wong 補充： 這個意見主要是學生）。縮短每週的工作時間，是有需要

的，但需要思考從哪裡著手。我向大家解釋一下，以落石屎的過程為例，做完之後要拆

模具，目前是休息一天，所以隔一天拆也是來的及的，但是如果週六放假，那就是隔 2

天，那就拆不到了。運營商無論何時 24 小時負責地盤安全，地盤發生任何意外承建商

有責任，如果放假，發生事承建商也難脫其責。再以機器維修為例，如果做少一天，那

麼機器維修什麼時候做呢？大型的機器需要一些額外的時間維修保養。在我看來，是否

一刀切，週六完全不開工是不是合理呢？ 因此我認為不可以立法，應該按情況分析，

以工人的自主選擇為主。現在的制度下，減少一天就減少了一天收入，我們是否可以承

受這個成本，施工的障礙，對於承建商來說的工期，業主與發展商應該溝通。對於年輕

人入行來說，錢應該不是最主要的原因，錢的話，建造業收入已經很高。我最認同的是

形象因素。作為承建商來說，我常常看到建造工人到住宅區附近的餐廳用餐被拒絕。再

以工地設施來說，有的地盤絕對有沖涼設施的，但是可以容納多少個人呢？ 應該是極

少的，是否可以多建呢，也是缺乏可行性的。因此真正能使用這些設施的工人是很少的。

這些就是我想和各位建造業前輩，同行分享的。

Prof. Wong：對於這個研究，我的理解是，建造業議會和建造商會認為太少年輕人入行，

探討研究如果星期六地盤不開工，是否可以鼓勵年輕人入行，當然這不是唯一的方法，

可能還有其他更重要的議題，在研究中我們已經發現，週六不開工是其中一個方法。

第二位發言者：我在 Consultant 公司裡工作，我認為這是一個社會學的問題。以前中三

畢業後就可以工作，但是現在的教育制度鼓勵讀書，拉長了年紀，現在中學 3 年，有很

多學位可以繼續讀下去。建造業老化問題，我也認為很正常，公務員一樣存在這樣的問

題，所以今天的議題是否需要討論呢？

179

Prof Wong：我認為人口的問題是香港社會共同面對的問題，但是建造業面對的問題更

加嚴重，因為這個行業比較多要求體力勞動，所以我認為你說的沒問題，其實是有問題

的，根據我們的研究發現，年齡上面出現了斷層，50 歲以上的工人多，30，40 歲的人

少，我們希望最有經驗，年富力強的這批人恰好是最少的。所以問題是很嚴重的。

第二位發言者: 這個是香港社會嬰兒潮時間分段的問題，是整個社會都面對的。

Prof Wong：我承認是全社會都面對的問題，不是單一建造業問題。但是在座是建造業

行家，我們對這個問題更加關切，年輕人經驗不夠，不願入行，年紀大的願意入行，但

是體力不夠。

第三位發言者：我是在消防公司做的。我記得我年輕時，家裡的人對我說，你讀書不行，

就去地盤做工吧，但是現在我們請人請不到，這是什麼原因呢？因為都是大學生，讀書

讀了很多年，現在已經 20 多歲 30 多歲，已經不願意入行了。

Prof Chiang： 這是一個挑戰，這個情況下我們怎麼樣吸引年輕人才是我們的問題，可

能運用高科技之類的措施，也許真的可以吸引年輕人。

第四位發言者：我也是在承建商工作，聽了在座那麼多行家的意見，我認為作為承建商，

大多數人應該都不會喜歡 Saturday Off。怎麼樣改善建造業年齡斷層的現象。我認為還

是要增加開工的工具、機械，這樣就可以減少工人的利用，工人的工作時間太長，相當

辛苦。如果我兒子問我應不應該入行，我會告訴他，如果要害你，就讓你入行。因此要

減少使用本地勞工，可以增加工具。此外工序上面的要求，紮鐵，油漆，落石屎等等，

都需要在一定工序做完後立刻進行下一步，隔兩天再完成，是不可以的。我們香港用的

是分判制度，這個制度的好處就是可替代，木工，消防等所有工序的工人都是可以替換

的，我們是師徒制度，很多時候也是師傅帶著自己的兒子做事。我們工人都是日薪制，

而且少了一天工作天，工期會拉長。教育方面也是一樣的，教育時間拉長，所以我們的

下一代的受教育程度變高，可不可以將教育分開一點呢？建造業設立 Training Center，

給一個行頭給他，學習木工，水喉，石屎工，泥水工。那麼年輕人就可以選擇，不想讀

書，或者讀書不好的時候，可以選擇 Technical School。 現在 50 幾歲的人還在地盤上工

作，我覺得他們實在太辛苦了。至於談到改善建築現場的設施，我覺得這是一個錢的問

題，我可以請一個工人每一層做清潔，這只是錢的問題。其他設施方面的建議也很重要，

很多工人被市民嫌棄，如果有工地設施可以幫他們下班前清潔，應該會是很不錯的方法，

180

對於吸引工人來說真的很需要。

第五位發言者：我在 Consultant 公司，我看你們的研究，調研的對象是否應該是找不到

工作的，沒入行的那批人呢？現在問卷瞭解的似乎全部都是正在做工作的人。 這個研

究是在改變一種社會制度，一般這樣的改變都會遭到社會上既得利益者的反對，之前聽

到在座各位的發言，其實不需要特別擔心。因為制度實行後，所有的投標將會計算少一

天工作的情況，你的公司會和其他公司去競爭，但是這個競爭都是在同樣的條件下進行

的。

Prof. Wong: 並非，我們問卷調查的不但有正在做工作的人，還有建造業業會正在培訓

的一批人，也包括中學生。

第六位發言者：之前的師兄講的都很有道理，我不再重複。我現在談談食物鏈的問題，

最高的是開發商，工人是食物鏈最底端的，工時長的問題應該從食物鏈頂端的人改變開

始，而不應該壓制最底端人的利益。至於年輕人入行，我認為現在賺錢的行業很多，年

輕人其實比較重視有品質的生活，做工人就少一天假。所以應該討論建造的速度是不是

需要那麼快呢？發展商制定時間時應該更加合理。其實建造業工資很高，錢已經不是一

個最重要的問題了。

181

Appendix 26: List of project meetings

Meetings Time, date & Venue Attendants

Internal

No.1

Time: 11:00 - 11:35am

Date: 29 May 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 2

Time: 10:30-11:30 am

Date: 12 June 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 3

Time: 2:30-3:30 pm

Date: 25 June 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 4

Time: 10:30-11:30 pm

Date: 7 July 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

With CIC No. 5

Time: 2:30-3:30 pm

Date: 8 July 2014

Venue: CIC office

Mr. Julian Lee

Dr. James Wong

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Internal

No. 6

Time: 2:00-2:30 pm

Date: 7 August 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 7

Time: 2:00-3:00 pm

Date: 27 August 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 8

Time: 10:00-10:30 am

Date: 11 Sept 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 9

Time: 10:45 am -11:15 am

Date: 25 Sept 2014

Venue: ZS 716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

182

No. 10

Time: 10:30 am -11:30 am

Date: 9 Oct 2014 (Thur)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

No. 11

Time: 4:30 pm -5:00 pm

Date: 24 Oct 2014 (Fri)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

With CIC No. 12

Time: 2:00 pm -3:00 pm

Date: 3 Nov 2014 (Mon)

Venue: ZS 736, 7/F, South tower, Z

Block, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University

Mr. Julian Lee

Dr. James Wong

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

Internal

No. 13

Time: 4:30 pm – 5:00 pm

Date: 7 Nov 2014 (Fri)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 14

Time: 10:30 pm - 11:20 pm

Date: 26 Nov 2014 (Wed)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 15

Time: 2:30 pm - 3:10 pm

Date: 10 Dec 2014 (Wed)

Venue: ZS736

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 16

Time: 4:30 pm - 5:00 pm

Date: 7 Jan 2015 (Wed)

Venue: ZS721

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

With CIC No. 17

Time: 2:00 pm -3:00 pm

Date: 14 Jan 2015 (Wed)

Venue: ZS 736, 7/F, South tower, Z

Block, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University

Mr. Julian Lee

Dr. James Wong

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

183

Ms. Corrine Wu

Internal

No. 18

Time: 3:00 pm - 3:30 pm

Date: 22 Jan 2015 (Thur)

Venue: ZS721

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 19

Time: 10:30 am - 11:10 am

Date: 4 Feb 2015 (Wed)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 20

Time: 10:30 am - 11:10 am

Date: 27 Feb 2015 (Fri)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 21

Time: 10:30 am – 11:10 am

Date: 13 Mar 2015 (Fri)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 22

Time: 10:30 am – 11:45 am

Date: 20 Mar 2015 (Fri)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 23

Time: 4:30 pm – 5:00 pm

Date: 25 Mar 2015 (Wed)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 24

Time: 3:30 pm – 4:15 pm

Date: 23 Apr 2015 (Thur)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu

No. 25

Time: 2:30 pm – 3:10 pm

Date: 7 May 2015 (Thur)

Venue: ZS716

Prof. Y.H. Chiang

Prof. Francis Wong

Dr. Li Tao

Ms. Corrine Wu