Issues with Local Employees from Employers' View
-
Singapore and jobs: It's a game of two halves
Singapore’s full employment is a source of pride but it is also the source of many of the problems employers have.
Singaporean employees have all the power and they know it. There is a lack of commitment which has a negative effect on a company’s long term planning. Length of employment is short and a promiscuous attitude from employees pervades. This comes through in the enormous number of sick days taken (almost to the degree that it is an unwritten rule that sick days are really just holidays with an MC) lack of drive, responsibility taking, lateral thinking and desire to go above and beyond the call of duty. Why do too much when you won’t be in the job that long?
I have heard many examples of Singaporean’s accepting a job and then either taking another better job even after signing a contract for the first job or just deciding not to turn up to the new job or accepting several offers all at the same time, thus letting down several expectant employers. It’s their playground and they’re going to play in it.
Singaporean’s generally live at home into their thirties or even forties. This allows them to have no financial concerns when it comes to a job. If they lose one or decide to leave to pursue another one without having a job to go to they know that they won’t lose their home as all their bills are covered by their parents. Money is then less of a motivating factor to committing to a job. Hunger is lacking.
A Managing Director of a large multinational once told me that in interviews he would always ask how much debt a person had as he believed that it made them more focused, committed and hard working. They had to worry about paying it off or keeping up prepayments on a house mortgage and therefore were going to be serious about delivering; going above and beyond what was needed and would do everything they could to achieve goals to generate an increase in salary and bonuses. This doesn’t seem to be a factor amongst Singaporeans and that comes through in a lack of ambition to succeed within their roles.
When they are in the job there is a lack of responsibility taking and lack of creative thinking. Is this the education system or just the attitude? Is this because there is a lack of risk taking in case it goes wrong and it’s better to play safe? Ironically you would expect Singaporean’s to actually be braver and take greater risks and think more laterally. They have the safety net of knowing that if it all goes wrong and they lose their job they still have their home living with their parents and minimal debts. Many other people around the world don’t have that plan B. If they take a risk and it doesn’t work out and they get fired or the company goes under they know that it will have a detrimental effect on their home, lifestyle and wellbeing. Yet they still take the risk. Why don’t Singaporeans?
Singapore’s country football team is facing calls from inside and outside of the game to be taken apart and abandoned such is the state of the national team but is it more to do with the same risk free, safety net lack of commitment factor? Contrast that with Barcelona. Barcelona is no bigger than Singapore with an immediate population of 1.4 million and even in Greater Barcelona it is only 4 million, less than Singapore’s 5 million. The bedrock of its success has been its ability to produce top players through La Masía, its in-house training academy. All three finalists for this year’s Fifa’s 2010 world’s player of the year are graduates of the academy and the winner, Lionel Messi, won for the second successive year. Barcelona takes a holistic approach.
La Masía has been home to more than 500 players over three decades, as both a training academy and boarding house. The original aim of the school was to develop successful football players. It sought out players who were talented, but also had the drive to win and the ability to work as part of a team. That is key. Personal development and athletic performance are made inseparable in the lives of young players.
Contrast that with the Singaporean players where instead of going to a boarding house at the age of 12, (as many current Barcelona players did), they are still living at home with mum and dad in their late 20’s and thirties. Instead of coming from relative poverty in Argentina in Messi’s case or Catalan in most other cases the Singaporean players have the comfort of knowing that if it doesn’t work out as a footballer they will be able to find a job very easily in the full employment world that is Singapore. This fall back plan B psychologically tempers desire, determination and ambition. It’s not all or nothing. It also means that they will always look after themselves rather than think of the team. Spain has 20% unemployment. If Singapore had that, would Singaporean’s go that extra mile, take that risk that would lead to greater security and rewards, remain in their jobs for longer and succeed to greater heights? Of course the society wouldn’t be as content and happy…you can’t have it all!
A recent survey showed that 40% of Singaporean’s would change job this year. They will because they know that they can. From an employer point of view this attitude limits creativity, lateral thinking and drive which in turn limit a company’s ability to compete. It’s one of the reasons that one million foreigners have been employed in Singapore in the past decade and its one of the reasons that holds back Singapore from realizing the amazing potential that the country has.
Chris Reed is the Regional Partnerships Director (Asia) of Partnership Marketing -
When an employer points his/her finger at an employee.. 3 of his/her own fingers point back.
Look at the list of "best companies to work for" no Singaporean company made the list. Ever wondered WHY ?
-
Originally posted by Turbulent Times:
Singapore and jobs: It's a game of two halves
Singapore’s full employment is a source of pride but it is also the source of many of the problems employers have.
Singaporean employees have all the power and they know it. There is a lack of commitment which has a negative effect on a company’s long term planning. Length of employment is short and a promiscuous attitude from employees pervades. This comes through in the enormous number of sick days taken (almost to the degree that it is an unwritten rule that sick days are really just holidays with an MC) lack of drive, responsibility taking, lateral thinking and desire to go above and beyond the call of duty. Why do too much when you won’t be in the job that long?
I have heard many examples of Singaporean’s accepting a job and then either taking another better job even after signing a contract for the first job or just deciding not to turn up to the new job or accepting several offers all at the same time, thus letting down several expectant employers. It’s their playground and they’re going to play in it.
Singaporean’s generally live at home into their thirties or even forties. This allows them to have no financial concerns when it comes to a job. If they lose one or decide to leave to pursue another one without having a job to go to they know that they won’t lose their home as all their bills are covered by their parents. Money is then less of a motivating factor to committing to a job. Hunger is lacking.
A Managing Director of a large multinational once told me that in interviews he would always ask how much debt a person had as he believed that it made them more focused, committed and hard working. They had to worry about paying it off or keeping up prepayments on a house mortgage and therefore were going to be serious about delivering; going above and beyond what was needed and would do everything they could to achieve goals to generate an increase in salary and bonuses. This doesn’t seem to be a factor amongst Singaporeans and that comes through in a lack of ambition to succeed within their roles.
When they are in the job there is a lack of responsibility taking and lack of creative thinking. Is this the education system or just the attitude? Is this because there is a lack of risk taking in case it goes wrong and it’s better to play safe? Ironically you would expect Singaporean’s to actually be braver and take greater risks and think more laterally. They have the safety net of knowing that if it all goes wrong and they lose their job they still have their home living with their parents and minimal debts. Many other people around the world don’t have that plan B. If they take a risk and it doesn’t work out and they get fired or the company goes under they know that it will have a detrimental effect on their home, lifestyle and wellbeing. Yet they still take the risk. Why don’t Singaporeans?
Singapore’s country football team is facing calls from inside and outside of the game to be taken apart and abandoned such is the state of the national team but is it more to do with the same risk free, safety net lack of commitment factor? Contrast that with Barcelona. Barcelona is no bigger than Singapore with an immediate population of 1.4 million and even in Greater Barcelona it is only 4 million, less than Singapore’s 5 million. The bedrock of its success has been its ability to produce top players through La Masía, its in-house training academy. All three finalists for this year’s Fifa’s 2010 world’s player of the year are graduates of the academy and the winner, Lionel Messi, won for the second successive year. Barcelona takes a holistic approach.
La Masía has been home to more than 500 players over three decades, as both a training academy and boarding house. The original aim of the school was to develop successful football players. It sought out players who were talented, but also had the drive to win and the ability to work as part of a team. That is key. Personal development and athletic performance are made inseparable in the lives of young players.
Contrast that with the Singaporean players where instead of going to a boarding house at the age of 12, (as many current Barcelona players did), they are still living at home with mum and dad in their late 20’s and thirties. Instead of coming from relative poverty in Argentina in Messi’s case or Catalan in most other cases the Singaporean players have the comfort of knowing that if it doesn’t work out as a footballer they will be able to find a job very easily in the full employment world that is Singapore. This fall back plan B psychologically tempers desire, determination and ambition. It’s not all or nothing. It also means that they will always look after themselves rather than think of the team. Spain has 20% unemployment. If Singapore had that, would Singaporean’s go that extra mile, take that risk that would lead to greater security and rewards, remain in their jobs for longer and succeed to greater heights? Of course the society wouldn’t be as content and happy…you can’t have it all!
A recent survey showed that 40% of Singaporean’s would change job this year. They will because they know that they can. From an employer point of view this attitude limits creativity, lateral thinking and drive which in turn limit a company’s ability to compete. It’s one of the reasons that one million foreigners have been employed in Singapore in the past decade and its one of the reasons that holds back Singapore from realizing the amazing potential that the country has.
Chris Reed is the Regional Partnerships Director (Asia) of Partnership Marketing<!-- google_ad_section_end -->You raise some valid points, but there's also another side to it. Since my answer might be long, I'll break it up.
It is the obvious position for any country or govt to take, in that the bulk of the workforce must be local. An economy succeeds when its people have jobs, and good paying ones at that.
It is true that we need to have FTs, to give that boost of manpower when companies and industries expand. Had we not done so, our workforce would have stagnated and with age, insufficient replacements for those retiring. The Govt was right in taking this course.
However in doing so, they got so carried away with it, that they literally opened the flood gates, and allowed all sorts of FTs for all sorts of jobs, that eventually has had a detrimental effect on the local born workforce.
-
Let's go back to the 90s and early 2000s, and start at the bottom, ie; temporary jobs for school leavers and low paying ones like cleaners, amongst others.
In the mid to late 90s, the general market rate for employing temps was around $5 an hour. As we moved into the new century, it gradually grew until a stage where $7-8 p/hr was the industry standard. If you looked and worked hard enough $8-10 p/hr was not impossible.
Then what happened? The floodgates were opened all these type of jobs were made available. Previously they had a very strict code, eg; Only Malaysians could work in factories and service jobs. Thai/Burma in construction and shipping. Indians/Banglas maybe Chinese in construction and menial labour. Pinoys in entertainment or nursing/health/maids. Customer service had to be local and only in justifiable cases like the hotel industry was the rule relaxed.
When these groups came in bulk, and their employment made far easier, what occured? Salaries dipped across the board. Instead of the market setting the pace with gradual salary increases to go with the changes to 1st world status, the Govt took the decision for them. Instead of ensuring employers adhere to a strict and widely policed rule, they instead gave employers a choice between locals and FTs, even in the lowest paying jobs, with the argument these are jobs were widely rejected by Singaporeans. (I'll explain further)
So instead of the $6-10 p/hr rate 1 would have naturally expected to see in the new decade, salaries effectively have returned back to mid-90s rates. You'll be hard pressed to find $6 p/hr jobs in these industries. It's back to $5 and in any cases even lower. Why? Because FTs are willing to take that sum or even lower!
-
Why did many companies primarily choose FTs over Singaporeans? Yes the points you raised are valid, Singaporeans being fickle minded, choosy, disloyal etc. But these workers are not in the majority, and truth be told, a very tiny minority, say 5-7%. What then was the reason for going the FT route? Money!
And to sweeten the deal? Many FTs actually pay to be employed! I worked briefly in the labour supply industry in the late 90s. My company's role was to supply workers for the construction industry. As many are aware, these Banglas/Indians (also Thai/Chinese) always paid a commission to their agents in India or Bangladesh, who in turn had to pay our fees as the local agents who process them for local businesses. Yes, there have been cases of greedy agents etc, and how dire and in debt these people were, working long hours in the blazing sun in a back breaking job, for a very meagre sum. However most licensed agents never took or even wanted to take more than what was fair to charge.
Strictly speaking the only 2 parties that could receive these commissions were the agents at home and us. But greedy bosses saw a major loophole in the system, and demanded a cut of our agent fees, in exchange for giving out contracts for employment. Some even charged $2-3000 per worker. So instead just charging the reasonable fee of $1,000 -$1500 we normally did, inclusive of air-fare, health screening and temporay accomodation, we were compelled to raise fees, in order to get contracts from bosses.
Just imagine if Boss A had 100 Man Year approval from MOM, and charged just $1k (this was at the lower end) per worker, he'd make a cool $100,000 before even employing these workers!
Is this illegal? It sure is, but which agent would dare report to CPIB? If they did, yes the bosses might face the rap, but they could forget staying in business, because no company would do business with them in future.
-
Because this practise was confined to the construction and shipping industry and involved lowly paid and unskilled foreign workers, nobody really bothered or cared about them.
But when the floodgates was opened for other low paying jobs in all industries, this practise has had a dramatic affect to the localised workforce. Eg: Company A needs 50 workers to work as sales and counter staff. Claims cannot find enough locals to over-come manpower shortage (may or may not be true, or if true could be because they refuse to pay well enough). So Co A is allowed to bring workers in from China or Philippines. Boss A tells Agents B and C in Manila and Shenzhen, to find them and wants say $300 per worker, and offers $3.50 p/hr to start with. (Smarter bosses bypass the local agent and deal directly with the overseas ones).
Agent's B and C advertise and recruit these workers and charge maybe anywhere from $500 - 1000 per worker. After approval and the workers ready to come, pays Boss A $300 x 50 = $15,000.
Workers come here and work at $3.50 an hour, a sum that's far exceeds what they could get back home. They are happy, Boss A is happy. No need to pay local worker $6-7 p/hr, plus get cash for employing the FTs. Even if FTs complain or report, who to? They dealt with own agent back home, and know nothing of the Boss's arrangements.
-
But the Govt hears nothing of these pratices and even if they did, there's no proof, mere hearsay. Rather they go with what the statistics show, companies were able to grow and advance because of the ability to hire FTs, for positions no Singaporeans wanted.
But did Singaporeans by and large rejected these jobs by being choosy? I met this elderly Chinese lady cleaner at Double-O. Essentially her jobs was to clean toilets and clean the joint before it opens the next day, by sweeping, mopping etc. For that she get's paid $42 a night - very justifiable considering it's a night job for 6 days a week. She would earn more than $1200 a month, a sum she's happy with.
Then what happens, the boss (Ang Moh no less), realises he can hire not 1 but 2 FTs at her pay scale. So he cuts down her and her fellow elderly cleaner's workdays from 6 to just twice a week, and employs 2 Chinese nationals who get paid $20 a night (rising to $22-24 after a few years)
Is she being choosy, disloyal or fussy? She even claims that when she and her friend report to work, the FTs simply 'act blur' and leave them to do most of the cleaning. I believe her though, because we know from our upbringing, that elderly women from her generation would not tolerate a dirty place and would naturally be inclined to clean up.
Sadly her story is not an isolated case, it's commonplace now. No Singaporean by and large, young or old, would reject jobs that appear/are lowly, if a fair pay was attached to it. With the cost of living always going up, they simply cannot afford to be paid salaries from the past century, in the current one. It's not being choosy, it's called common sense.
-
Having debts to service might just be the next employment requisite.
Well, it is true that I do try to keep debts to a minimum, or have none, just so job hopping would be easier.
I guess that's why employers would ask if you're married, or going to, or have your own home blah blah blah.
-
Originally posted by JoeRaj:
But the Govt hears nothing of these pratices and even if they did, there's no proof, mere hearsay. Rather they go with what the statistics show, companies were able to grow and advance because of the ability to hire FTs, for positions no Singaporeans wanted.
But did Singaporeans by and large rejected these jobs by being choosy? I met this elderly Chinese lady cleaner at Double-O. Essentially her jobs was to clean toilets and clean the joint before it opens the next day, by sweeping, mopping etc. For that she get's paid $42 a night - very justifiable considering it's a night job for 6 days a week. She would earn more than $1200 a month, a sum she's happy with.
Then what happens, the boss (Ang Moh no less), realises he can hire not 1 but 2 FTs at her pay scale. So he cuts down her and her fellow elderly cleaner's workdays from 6 to just twice a week, and employs 2 Chinese nationals who get paid $20 a night (rising to $22-24 after a few years)
Is she being choosy, disloyal or fussy? She even claims that when she and her friend report to work, the FTs simply 'act blur' and leave them to do most of the cleaning. I believe her though, because we know from our upbringing, that elderly women from her generation would not tolerate a dirty place and would naturally be inclined to clean up.
Sadly her story is not an isolated case, it's commonplace now. No Singaporean by and large, young or old, would reject jobs that appear/are lowly, if a fair pay was attached to it. With the cost of living always going up, they simply cannot afford to be paid salaries from the past century, in the current one. It's not being choosy, it's called common sense.
Hi
Honestly appreciate your thorough insight into the labor market and conditions. Yep, well aware of the trading business in foreign talents as my Uncle is involved in bringing in foreign talents into Malaysia.
Fyi: The article was not written by me.
It was something interesting I picked up while surfing the net, and honestly, some of the points discussed by the article owner (an ang moh......go figure) were actually quite valid, based on my own direct experience of managing local staff.
So yeah......well there is always two sides to the story. Unfortunately in Singapore, with the lack of supportive trade unions, it's the employer's ball game.
-
To claim how a person with heavy debts can do better in a job is really poor intelligence. Let me see what I can think up in a min. A person with heavy debts can't manage their money well, so what makes them think he can do well with company finances or responsibilities. A person with heavy debts got so many problems in the mind, do you think he will clear his personal problems first or settle the company's problems first? If you're hungry, will you eat first or will you spend the next 3 days clearing what your boss ask you to clear? If a person has heavy debts, how could they concentrate on the job? Wouldn't a person with debts want to look for 2nd income? Wouldn't a person with debts want to look for a better paying job? I know for sure if my $1500 income can't help me clear my debts, I won't work harder in my job but I will find an easier job (or tougher one) that pays $2500.
1 minute I can think up of so many counter arguments, and this Chris Reed claims is just lacking substance. Debts = better employee? LOL!!! Why don't he just claim a fat person need to eat more, therefore more hardworking because they need the money??? So hire all fat people in the company???