The Move Forward Party (MFP)-led House committee on labour is proposing an amendment to the Labour Protection Act aimed at abolishing temporary and daily employment and upgrading the status of workers to help them make ends meet.
Better labour rights protection is cited as the main reason behind the move, but EconThai, a key association of employers, is opposing the amendment for what it believes is a change that will do more harm than good to many businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing sector and small- and medium-sized enterprises.
With an upgraded status under the bill, labourers would have better opportunities to enhance their abilities, said Suthep Ou-oun, MFP MP and chair of the committee.
Employers will eventually benefit from the improved work efficiency of their employees, he said.
Citing data obtained from the Commerce Ministry, Mr Suthep said wages for daily and temporary employees currently make up between 2% and 3% of total production costs.
Currently, up to 41% of workers are paid less than 10,000 baht a month and 25% less than 15,000 baht, meaning 66% of workers now earn less than 16,783 baht, the estimated average monthly salary needed for them to live, he said.
Workers who are paid between 15,000 and 30,000 baht per month account for only 24% of all employees and those who are paid 30,000 baht or higher account for 10%, he said.
"Dedicating their time and energy to their work, these workers find themselves struggling to make ends meet while dealing with crippling debt," he said.
The improvement to the quality of life of these workers, considered to be a vast majority of people in society, will greatly contribute to the country's overall development, the parliamentarian said.
If passed, changes will also be applied to contract work and all types of temporary employment in government organisations and state enterprises, he said.
The weekly working hours of employees will also be capped at 40 hours for general work and 35 hours for work with increased health risks to workers, he said.
He said that under the amendment, each worker will have at least two days off and won't have to work back-to-back for more than five days, adding maternity leave will also be extended from 90 to 180 paid days.
Naowarat Songsawatchai, chair of the Employers' Confederation of Thai Trade and Industry (EconThai), said her group is not the only one opposing the plan as the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) is also strongly against it.
EconThai and the FTI have already submitted a joint statement opposing the amendment, while more than 40 pro-labour organisations have submitted statements supporting it.
"More days off and shorter working hours will mean substantial missing manufacturing hours while employers are still paying their workers for no improved productivity," Ms Naowarat said.
"We can never live that way," she added.
Ms Naowarat described the opposition party's move as an attempt to woo voters ahead of the next general election, one which would jeopardise the future of businesses, especially small- and medium enterprises that currently account for up to 80% of all businesses in the country.
Currently, employment is an agreement reached between employers and employees with all costs of production being taken into consideration to ensure businesses gain sufficient profits to remain afloat, she said.
The proposed changes in the bill would also come as an interference in the tripartite group system, which is used for calculating minimum daily wages, comprising the employers, employees and government, Ms Naowarat said.
Bodies sitting on the national wage committee include the Bank of Thailand and the Ministry of Commerce, which have the balanced data necessary for making the employment wage rates realistic, she said.
In reality, many workers have been hired for 10 to 15 years under a temporary work contract that offers them fewer work benefits than those offered to permanent staff, said Sia Champathong, president of a union of workers in the textile industry.
"Most manufacturers try to keep labour costs as low as possible to maximise their profits, which is unfair and can be seen as a form of labour abuse," he said.