IT IS good news for those over 62 years old that some 'Singapore firms are keeping workers beyond age 62' (April 27) for their expertise, experience, character and attitude. This is the right thing to do instead of rushing to employ foreigners on low wages.
At least one firm has stated that employing older people is not much more expensive than employing foreigners. The latter also bring with them social problems.
Other employers should take their cue from Han's, the bakery chain where 40 per cent of the workforce is aged between 40 and 82.
I presume all these elderly people are Singaporeans. This is good. Then we will not have a situation where many unskilled or low-skilled foreign workers take jobs from Singaporeans and send the money home. Singaporeans will also make a living and spend here to support sections of the economy.
If employers must pay more for Singaporeans, at least the money is spent here. If costs go up, it is a natural process and does not bleed the country as when low-skilled foreigners send money home.
A Singaporean does not have to be broken in. He does not have to be integrated, saving the country millions.
There is need to ensure that foreigners are employed only in jobs which need their skills. I believe in Australia, one cannot get a visa unless one's skill is required.
Also high-skilled foreigners will create fewer problems and improve the local scene, socially, culturally and in other ways.
The recent cascade of unskilled foreigners working as cleaners, shop assistants, coffee shop assistants, hawker stall assistants and so on has produced much disquiet. Besides their productivity is poor.
One thing worries me though, about older Singaporeans working in low-skilled jobs like those I have described. I wonder if they have annual leave, medical leave and medical insurance cover. They should also have some security of tenure, that is, they should not be sacked if they report sick occasionally.
Murali Sharma
according to the Singaporean auntie cleaner, they don't get medical cover... if they fall ill, it's their own business...
and they're given like 7 days annual leave and any more than that is considered no-pay leave...
so jialat..
Originally posted by Clivebenss:so jialat..
yah.. it is..
the tender for the cleaning job was won by another company and all of them "lost their jobs" and had to renegotiate collectively with the new company if they wanted to keep their jobs in this building...
a lot of them left because of cuts to various things.. like their leave was from 14 to 7 days... they have to do more... restricted OT.. stuff like that...
the cleaner auntie stayed because she lives across the road and saves on transport if she works here...
so.. when the MIW says "cheaper, faster, better" or whatever the hell it is they lie about, this is cheaper, faster and better... the people who cannot afford to get squeezed are squeezed...
Originally posted by the Bear:
yah.. it is..the tender for the cleaning job was won by another company and all of them "lost their jobs" and had to renegotiate collectively with the new company if they wanted to keep their jobs in this building...
a lot of them left because of cuts to various things.. like their leave was from 14 to 7 days... they have to do more... restricted OT.. stuff like that...
the cleaner auntie stayed because she lives across the road and saves on transport if she works here...
so.. when the MIW says "cheaper, faster, better" or whatever the hell it is they lie about, this is cheaper, faster and better... the people who cannot afford to get squeezed are squeezed...
MIW don't clean tables, and those contractors bid like crazy. The cleaners are the one getting the cuts. It's all about more profits nowadays.