Workplaces
Nobody emails HR
about their manager.
An employee spends three weeks deciding whether to write in about theirs. They draft it twice, and both times they stop at the same place — the From line. So the roster stays unfair, the shouting keeps happening, and the first written record of any of it is made by a lawyer, eighteen months later, for someone who has already resigned. A tell.sg box is where that email finally gets written: no name on it, and HR can still reply, ask questions, and say what happened.
Why now — the Workplace Fairness Act
From its expected commencement, employers with 25 or more staff must run a grievance-handling process that protects the identity of the person who raised a grievance — and tells that same person the outcome. Most channels can do one or the other: a named email fails the first, an anonymous form the second. How a case thread does both ↓
What stays quiet
Four things your people already know, and haven’t told you.
The manager, to that manager’s peer
Every escalation path you have runs through someone who has lunch with the person being escalated about.
Roster and overtime fairness
Too small to file, too persistent to forget — and the first thing that shows up in attrition instead.
The expenses habit
Everyone on the floor knows. Nobody wants to be the one whose name is on having said it.
Safety shortcuts under deadline
Reported after the injury, in the incident review — never before, when it was just a concern.
None of these is a knowledge problem. Your people know. Saying it just costs them more than staying quiet does — until the channel can’t know who said it.
Anonymous doesn’t have to mean one-way
Anonymous — and they were still told what happened.
This exchange is invented, for illustration. No real box, sender or company appears in it.
The overtime is not being shared fairly on the weekend shift and people are afraid to say anything.
Thank you for writing. I want to look into this properly, but I need something to look at — which team or shift, and roughly since when? Skip anything you feel would identify you; I can’t see who you are either way.
Warehouse, the Saturday shift, since about March. Two people get offered it every week and the rest of us are never asked.
I pulled the Saturday roster back to March and you’re right — the same two people, eleven weeks out of fourteen. From next month the allocation rotates, and the supervisor and I have discussed how it was being offered. Thank you for telling us. This wouldn’t have reached me otherwise.
Nobody learned who wrote that — and they were still told the outcome, which is the duty an anonymous form can’t discharge.
How it runs in a workplace
Put the poster where nobody watches them scan it.
A poster outside the HR office is a poster nobody scans. The pantry and the toilets are where someone can stand alone with a phone without being observed doing it — that placement decision does more for your reporting rate than any launch email. Then the back of the roster board, and a page in the onboarding pack, so the channel arrives as furniture rather than as a response to an incident.
Who holds a seat
Named seats, one login each, so replies and closures are attributed and access is revoked individually when someone leaves. For most workplaces that’s the HR lead, a second responder for cover, and one person outside the reporting line — for anything that names HR itself.
Their language, not yours
English, 中文, Bahasa Melayu and தமிழ் are available on every plan. Enable the ones your responders can answer in, and the whole page — poster to reply — follows the sender’s choice. For shift and service teams this is usually the difference between a channel and a channel that gets used.
What Monday looks like
The number that matters is cases nobody has opened. Your digest warns you while it’s an internal matter; leave messages unopened for over a week and your box page tells senders so — “Messages to this box have been waiting unread for over a week.” Reading is enough to clear it. Uncomfortable, and it is why your people will believe the channel is real.
Evidence, without the metadata
The payslip screenshot and the roster photo are the two attachments that would otherwise identify a sender by device or by file. Photos are rebuilt pixel by pixel and PDFs become images before they reach you — the evidence arrives, the identity doesn’t.
Workplace Fairness Act
Walk the Act’s four duties down that thread.
Inquire into each grievance
The follow-up question, on the thread. A vague report isn’t a dead end when you can ask it for specifics — which is also what makes most bad-faith reports collapse.
Keep written records
The thread is the record: the report, your inquiry, the outcome, each reply attributed to a named seat, in order.
Protect the reporter’s identity
Give grievances a private box: only the custodians you name can open it — not the rest of the team, and not the people a report is about. That answers the duty before anything is disclosed, rather than tracing it afterwards. Every reply is still attributed to a named seat and every case opening recorded, and using the platform to work out who a sender is — by technical means or by pressure — is grounds for closure.
Tell that person the outcome
The duty an ordinary anonymous channel cannot discharge — you can’t report back to someone you never identified.
On a thread, the final reply is the outcome, delivered to someone who was never identified.
The same hedge we give every buyer: tell.sg supports the intake, confidentiality, dialogue and record-keeping parts of a grievance process. It isn’t compliance in a box — the policy, the trained responders and the investigation are yours.
Reasonable objections
What workplaces ask us.
We’re a small company. Our people won’t believe it’s really anonymous.
They shouldn’t take your word for it, and the design assumes they won’t. There is nothing to fill in but the message, nobody is ever required to identify themselves, and nothing about them reaches you. What we keep and what we don’t is written for the sender, not for you, at What we keep — the page your most sceptical employee should read.
We already have a channel — a form, or an external hotline.
The Google-Form QR has the problem this product exists for: Singapore has spent years teaching people not to scan a link with no name on it, and a form can’t reply — so you can neither inquire nor report an outcome. The outsourced hotline solves trust by distance, but it’s built for the compliance end of reporting; nobody calls a hotline about the Saturday roster, so the everyday grievances that become resignations still go nowhere.
What if someone uses it to attack a colleague by name?
Then you hold a named allegation you can inquire into — which is what the Act asks of you anyway. The same allegation was previously arriving as corridor talk; on a thread you can test it with questions before acting on it, and the record shows you did.
The rest — abuse and rate limits, what happens if you stop paying, who can see what — are answered honestly in the questions everyone asks.
Pricing
What an anonymous grievance channel costs.
One HR lead, one box
Lite, S$12.95 a month — your ACRA-registered name and UEN on the page your people land on, and a single named login. The honest fit for a company where one person reads everything.
An HR function — the Fairness Act shape
Standard, S$29.95 a month — a seat for each responder, and a labelled box per site, outlet or department so reports arrive already sorted. If more than one person will read or reply, this is your plan.
Not sure yet
Open a free box today. Anonymous dialogue, all four languages and the full protection set are on every plan, free included — what the paid plans add is your verified name on the page, and your team’s tooling behind it.
Rather see it with someone? Book a ten-minute demonstration.
Boxes hang in other places too: estates & MCSTs, schools and shopfronts — or see all use cases.