佳礼资讯网

 找回密码
 注册

ADVERTISEMENT

查看: 1219|回复: 4

一个新妈的隐忧

[复制链接]
发表于 27-9-2015 04:03 AM | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Dear Editor,
I am a concerned mother who is deeply worried about the future of my children.
The threat of unscrupulous and discriminatory employment practices that favours foreigners over locals can be felt across the nation, from low wage earners to top-salaried professionals. While the government has stepped up efforts to help the displaced workers, the initiatives may be too passive and too little to fully address the root of the problems.
It is widely reported that Singapore PMEs had been squeezed out of employment due to an influx of cheaper but not necessary more qualified foreigners. Professionals holding top key positions in MNCs are also facing similar threats of whimsical dismissals, except, they are more likely to be replaced by more expensive expatriates, who are not necessarily more superior, in terms of qualifications, competency and experience.
This is a worrisome trend, and can do more harm than good to our economic and social development.
During my research to gain clearer insights of protection against unreasonable dismissals, I was shock to learn that PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month are not covered under the general provisions of the Employment Act, including redress against unfair dismissal, paid sick leave etc. Is this reasonable?
Perhaps, you and your readers help verify some of my findings, which I had posted in “UP for PME” Facebook page (NTUC) earlier (denoted in italic font)
  • Is it true PMEs earning above $4500/month are excluded from the basic floor rights under the Employment Act (Part IV), which covers rest days, hours of work, overtime, annual leave, retrenchment and retirement benefits, annual wage supplement and variable payments?”?
  • Is it true Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) compliance is not mandatory?
  • Is it true less than 6% of total 77,000 registered companies have pledged to comply to FCF guidelines, though FCF was introduced 2 years ago?
    Is it true the cost of compliance is higher than the cost of non-compliance?
  • Is it true “moral suasion” approach can be immoral & hence, rarely used in isolation to resolve economic problems in the real world?
If true, can please help explain how to ensure prejudice against Singapore job applicants can be removed; and Singapore core in the workplace can be successfully established when
  • Most PMEs basic rights to fair employment is not recognised and protected by law
  • Discriminatory employment practices against SG applicants is legal and not prohibited by law
  • Employers have no legal obligation NOT to subscribe to unscrupulous employment practices; no clear punishment for delinquency; and no proper channel of redress for victims of abuse.
It seems impertinent to assume private operators will have the innate sense of morality to contribute to the building of our “National Excellence” without “direct suasion”; It would be naive to assume the ubiquitous practice of favouritism, nepotism and cronyism in the workplace can be deterred without clear regulations and punishment; and lastly, PMEs are not “the doyens of the workforce” and neither do they command so much bargaining power that they do not need any protections against unscrupulous employment practices.
Hence, it is critical for the incumbent to review and amend our outdated law for the modern economy. Not only should EA be extended to all PMEs, we also need to implement a set of clear authoritative standards, to install discipline & ensure accountability to prevent and combat exploitation.
But policy makers may deem the call for greater protection for our workers and defense against discriminatory employment practices as Protectionism; a GREAT SATAN, that jeopardises free market mechanism, and curbs economic growth. But is their fear valid?
Perhaps, our policy makers have over-rated the value of foreign talents and over-estimated their contribution, while under-estimating the threats of unfair competition from abroad. Perhaps, they should re-examine the implications of the following observations:
  • Foreign PMEs may be cheaper but not necessary more superior.
  • Unqualified Foreign PMEs are unfairly remunerated with better salary.
  • Foreign PMEs do not help create more job opportunities, instead, they lower morale and reduce productivity.
When our high skilled workers are driven into low skilled jobs such as taxi drivers, security guards, freelancers, contract workers & etc, it causes much grievances and financial hardship on families. On the national level, our own valuable human resources is forced to go into “idle”; leading to lower efficiency; and causes our economy to operate below its optimal level. Hence, we are worst off in the long run, for failure to provide adequate protection for our workers to fend off unfair competition that jeopardises efficient distribution of resources and undermines productivity.
If you believe in empowering our future, please stand up for more protection for our PMEs. Please say NO to unscrupulous, discriminatory employment practices against our PMEs. Let us help restore confidence in our core values based on meritocracy, justice and equality.
May the door to success is opened for our young, once again.
Thank you.

Irene
回复

使用道具 举报


ADVERTISEMENT

 楼主| 发表于 27-9-2015 04:05 AM | 显示全部楼层
亲爱的编辑,

我是一个关心的母亲是谁深感担心我的孩子的未来。

无良与就业歧视有利于外国人在当地人的威胁可以在全国范围内显现出来,从低端打工仔顶薪的专业人士。虽然政府已加紧努力帮助下岗工人,该计划可能会过于被动和太少完全解决的问题的根源。

它被广泛报道,新加坡机动设备已经被挤出就业由于便宜,但不是必需更有资格外国人的涌入。持有跨国公司顶尖关键岗位专业人员也面临着异想天开解雇的类似威胁,除非,他们更可能用更昂贵的外籍人士,谁不一定是更加出众,在学历,能力和经验方面进行更换。

这是一个令人担忧的趋势,并且可以做弊大于利,以我们的经济和社会发展。

在我的研究,以获得保护,防止不合理解雇的更清晰的见解,我很震惊获悉,机动设备收入超过每月$ 4500名没有在就业法的一般规定,其中包括赔偿不公平解雇覆盖,带薪病假等是这合理吗?

也许,你和你的读者帮助验证了我的一些调查结果,我已经张贴在“同意接收PME”的Facebook页面(NTUC)较早(以斜体字表示)

    是真的机动设备收入超过$ 4500 /月。被排除在就业法案(第四部分),其中涵盖了休息日,工作,加班,年休假,裁员和退休福利,每年的工资补贴和可变付款时间基本落地权?“?
    这是真的公平的考虑框架(FCF)合规性是不是强制性的?
    这是真的低于总77000注册的公司6%已承诺遵守到FCF的指导方针,但FCF引入2年前?
    这是真的合规的成本比不遵守的成本高?
    它是真正的“道德劝说”的方式可以是不道德的和因此很少用于孤立地解决现实世界中的经济问题?

如果属实,可以请帮忙解释一下如何确保偏见新加坡求职者可以去掉;和新加坡的核心在工作场所能够成功建立时,

    大多数机动设备的基本权利,公平就业是不承认和受法律保护
    对SG申请就业歧视的法律,而不是法律所禁止的
    雇主没有法律义务不订阅不法用工行为;没有明确的惩罚犯罪;和补救的虐待受害者没有适当的渠道。

这似乎不恰当的假设私人运营商将有道德的天生的感觉有助于我们的“全国优秀”的建设没有“直接劝告”;这将是天真的假设的偏袒,裙带关系和任人唯亲的工作场所普遍存在的做法可能没有明确的规定和处罚而却步;最后,机动设备不是“劳动力的高徒”也一样,他们吩咐他们不需要对不法用工行为的任何保护这么多的议价能力。

因此,它是至关重要的现任审查和修正我们的过时的法律为现代经济。不仅要EA扩大到所有机动设备,我们还需要实现一套明确的权威标准,安装纪律和确保问责制,防止和打击剥削。

但是,政策制定者可能认为呼吁我们的工人对就业歧视的保护主义更大的保护和维护;一个大魔头,也危及自由市场机制,以及路缘经济增长。但是,他们的恐惧是否有效?

也许,我们的政策制定者已经超过额定海外人才的价值,高估了自己的贡献,同时低估来自国外的不公平竞争的威胁。也许,他们应该重新审视以下意见的影响:

    外国机动设备可能会更便宜,但不是必需更加出众。
    不合格洋机动设备是不公平的报酬更好的薪水。
    外国机动设备不利于创造更多的就业机会,相反,他们降低士气,降低工作效率。

当我们的高技能工人被驱动到低技能的工作,如出租车司机,保安人员,自由职业者,合同工和等,这会导致大量的不满和对家庭经济困难。在国家层面,我们自己的宝贵的人力资源是被迫进入“空转”;导致较低的效率;并导致我国经济运行低于其最佳水平。因此,我们是最差的,从长远来看,对未提供充分的保护,我们的工作人员挡开了危害资源的有效分配和破坏生产力的不公平竞争。

如果你相信使我们的未来,请站起来为我们的机动设备更多的保护。请说不反对我们的机动设备不择手段,就业歧视。让我们来帮助恢复信心,在我们的基础上任人唯贤,公平正义的核心价值。

可能成功的大门被打开了我们年轻,再次。

谢谢。

艾琳
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 27-9-2015 04:06 AM | 显示全部楼层
怪古歌,不要怪keling
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 27-9-2015 04:07 AM | 显示全部楼层
新加坡的future就在外劳!
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 27-9-2015 03:12 PM 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
是世界级大学的毕业生没有竞争力?
是世界级大学毕业生比较KBKB?
是世界级大学生要求比较高?
是世界级大学生比较挑工作?
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

 

ADVERTISEMENT



ADVERTISEMENT



ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT


版权所有 © 1996-2023 Cari Internet Sdn Bhd (483575-W)|IPSERVERONE 提供云主机|广告刊登|关于我们|私隐权|免控|投诉|联络|脸书|佳礼资讯网

GMT+8, 7-10-2024 05:42 AM , Processed in 0.114612 second(s), 28 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表