quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billybong:
I don't think our education system was designed to 'cultivate a
society of well educated people'. Our streaming system, while
flawed, simply helped out this misconception. I certainly don't
applaud our segregation mentality: that students who ace their
exams are meant to dress up in a suit and work in an office while
those who screwed up their early years carry the garbage out of the
dumpsters.
Evidently, it's an unglamourous job: getting your hands dirty and
reeking of filth. Which like-minded Singaporean would wanna slob a
living in this manner?
But if it pays well.....who cares? You've struck a chord by
suggesting that managing trash collection pays dividends. Now it's
a question of sharing the profits with your garbage
collectors.
I really believe that if you pay garbage collectors 1K a month,
give them additional responsibilities such as catagorizing the
garbage (eg: recycle products vs biodegradable) and rename their
vocation into something less demeaning, our locals may just hop on
the bandwagon...
But i'm just an idealist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically what I'm saying here is that people are largely brought
up with rather high expectations with regards to OCCUPATION.
Meaning that people have a decent education would not likely give a
thought to menial jobs, such as rubbish collecting. In other words,
given equal opportunities, I think almost all would rather be an
employer rather than an employee. Myself, as an example.
While true back then that local Chinese tend to view such jobs as
lowly, I believe the times have change their mindset quite
substantially. However, time was not able to affect change of any
degree towards rising living costs hence people are generally still
UNABLE (not UNWILLING) to take a lower salaried job. (what's the
point of slogging all day all week and still have your electricity
and water supply cut off?)
It isn't so much status and or name of the position that irks
locals, it's the amount paid for the effort. Society in every
country are NEVER comprised totally of Doctors, Scientists &
Engineers. Hence there will always be the averagely ambitioned
fraction of society who just simply wants to GET BY.
So fancy cosmetic titles for jobs catches not their interest, but
rather size of salary to/that commensurates with today's living
costs.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billybong:
Competition has stressed out the market. Everyone is talking about
cost-cutting measures. It's always easier to cut costs then venture
out and make MORE MONEY to manage your overheads.
This is something i never understood. But it's the standard
practice in every company, be it GLCs or Private enterprises. It's
generally recognized (though foolishly exaggerated) that locals are
fussy, high-maintenance and unwilling to step out of their comfort
zones. FTs are way easier to handle, ask for less and almost always
give more.
So why not? Employers always lament that locals have only
themselves to blame by refusing to accept pay cuts and jumping ship
at the earliest convenience when 'greener pastures' come
beckoning.
If our people break out of this stereotype, they may yet make a
difference. Till then, i simply see FTs as the competition. And it
is a competition i have to beat to stay relevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreeably, competition has done something to the market, but why do
you think both employee and employers are biatching about costs and
hankering for cheaper this and cheaper that??
FTs I admit are good for our economy. But right now, not all from
China coming and already here, are "skilled". A large proportion of
them are unskilled and are contributing to society's vices and
crime. This is due to our government's
throw-our-door-wide-open-to-all-from-anywhere policy. As you
already know, these "FTs" from PRC are making a mockery of our
immigration system by doing all sorts of things just to secure the
PR status.
You can't blame locals for "jumping ship when greener pastures
beckons", because this is not a welfare state and everyone must
take care of his/her own retirement years (if any/able to at all).
Who will want to waste time and effort doing some job which in the
end, lands them in some old age home? Don't tell me their children
will be there for them - having children doesn't mean they will
take care of aged parents. Gov has OVERPRICED living costs, hence
the people need also to PRICE themselves accordingly. As much as
businesses are NOT CHARITIES, people also needs to SURVIVE.
Governments hopes to "top up" population with FOREIGNERS (FTs), but
it looks to me, they're topping up population with future aged PR
holders and New Citizens!!!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billybong:
Maybe this is a question meant for the aunties. Again it's a
paradox. By mass importing maids and making it an industry onto
itself, aunties have the mistaken impression that by taking on
cleaning jobs in direct competition to maids, it 'degrades' them to
the same level of the 'maids'. And that itself is demeaning and
unglamourous.
Who would have seen these turn of events 20 years ago? Back then,
for a nominal fee, these aunties would work the day shift cleaning
the house, ironing the clothes and buying food for the kids when
the parents were not in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glamour no longer mattered. As said, people here are now not as
mindful of what they do, and I believe many will gladly take up any
cleaning or maid jobs if opportunities arises; many jobless middle
aged and able bodied ladies/men have children to support and see
through school and higher education - if ordinary low-skilled or
unskilled jobs are snatched away by unskilled "FTs", HOW do local
people dare consider having babies?? Remember, I'm meaning
ordinarily ambitioned folks, not rocket scientists wannabes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billybong:
While never willing to admit it, many companies are still sex and
age discriminatory. Women who are likely to get pregnant and
employees above the age of say 50 tend to be 'high-maintenance',
and companies measure their productivity by the man-hours put in.
The yard stick comes when critical periods are filled with
maternity leave or long-term illnesses.
I don't think health costs and medical benefits come into the
picture just yet. It's just a matter of the company's driven
culture to demand the best out of each employee that forces their
hand in such circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is RAMPANT. And NO ONE (employers) will ever admit
it so long as gov does not bother to PROACTIVELY crack down on
discrimination towards employees and or would-be employees.
Who do you think is responsible for causing young pregnant women to
lose their jobs? For want or more babies, gov implements policies
with little consideration of the kind of repercusions it will
cause, just like throwing our doors wide open to all sorts of
FTs.
Healthcare costs DOES matter. Medical Benefits costs a lot in a
business that employs older people. I have business friends who
will only hire older locals if they agree to not being given ANY
medical benefits - eg., if he or she has diabtetes, his/her monthly
medical costs for treating the condition will not be subsidized.
Such arrangents are blossoming everywhere here like toadstools in a
rotten wood!
