Perspectives of the Standard Working Hours Imposed in Health-care Industry – Is It Really Helpful to the Employees?
Main Article Content
Abstract
Hong Kong legislators, as well as labor activists, have demanded for the introduction of a standard on working hours to protect the working population and, in particular, those working in industries notorious for long working hours. A Standard Working Hours (SWH) Committee was set up in April 2013 to look into ways for the implementation of such legal standard in Hong Kong. Given the job nature of doctors, this study is to explore the reactions from the health-care professions with regard to whether the SWH should be legislated in Hong Kong’s health-care industry. Thirteen doctors working in public hospitals were interviewed. The themes that emerged from the study were working hour patterns; will SWH jeopardize the service quality; should SWH be legislated to doctors. The findings concluded that it is not possible to impose a strict limit or a standard on working time to doctors given their job nature and that the service quality will also suffer. However, it was found that doctors, in particular junior doctors, were willing to work the extra hours for extra pay, a pay compensation rather than an allowance that they are receiving now. However, if the compensation was given out for extra hours worked, this would lead to a budget issue which will have to be confronted by the government. It was suggested that doctors should either be exempted from this legislation or regulations or else it could be flexible enough to accommodate the special needs of medical services, as well as the different hours worked by different professional position. Based on the findings from the health-care service, this study set to provide suggestions on what it takes to be a flexible standard on working hours and a way forward to set a standard for health-care service.
Keywords: Standard Working Hours; Medical Profession; Work Pattern; Service Quality
Australian Academy of Business and Economics Review, vol 3, issue 2, April 2017, pp 113-118
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.