Having read thru much of the above posts as contributed by the
rest, I would also like to add in my opinion with regards to the
issue from both the immediate micro perspective, as well as the
macro implications of the event in the domestic business
environment.
In refreshing back our memories pertaining to the events, we see
that the course of events unfolding:
1)HDB Management requesting senior staff to volunteer for the SRS
(Special Resignation Scheme). The objective of this SRS program is
aimed primarily at trimming staff strength to a minimum, while at
the same time, retaining the younger staff of the statutory
board.
2)Having identified upon the volunteered candidates for the SRS
program, HDB then proceeded to calculate out the repayment packages
for each individuals.
3)Meanwhile, the new HDB Corp is also actively carrying out its own
recruitment exercise.
4)Having received their SRS package, the freshly discharged former
HDB staff would hence be looking for a new job.
5)Naturally, having done what they have been doing for the past
decades, the first company that the majority of the crowd would
have in mind, would naturally be the new HDB Corp.
6)Of those whom had then applied for vacancies in the new company,
700 got the job.
And simultaneously, the rest is history as we would all have been
very clear about.
Now in reviewing thru the entire logic flow process of the events
unfolding, we see that there were certainly no issues of
legislative breaches with regards in particular to the Singapore
Employment Act.
Be the entire scenario analyzed from its legality perspective, much
of the critical elements involved can be said to be done in place
with accordance to the legal structure.
And in view of certain remarks by the public crying foul at abuse
of the SRS system where critics have been questioning on why the
700 former HDB employees whom had been the recipients of the SRS
package are once again rehired by HDB Corp, the official spokesman
for HDB has clarified that the rationale for the retrench first
then hire again move was to ensure that the newly established
corporation to have a fresh start without the carrying forward of
previous burdens.
Going strictly by the book, we cannot deny that truth in the
statement, nor question on its legality, since as with the previous
above, there were no breach.
Under the logic based form of analysis, every event and every
action that has taken placed were systematic and well in place in
accordance with the default protocol practices.
In other words, there were no fault with HDB Managements
decision.
But then again, what we have seen in the above represented only the
logic and rational aspect of the case.
If we were to involve the factor of human emotions into the picture
as well, we would suddenly come to realize that unlike the previous
conclusion, we have forgotten to take into consideration, the sense
of guilt in the hearts of the HDB management.
The decision to retrench is never an easy one to make. All the
more, when the organization that is currently facing the need to do
so, is a governmentally affiliated statutory board.
And to add in onto the stress, the case would also be its first in
the history of Singapore, where a statutory board would be
retrenching it staff for the first time.
Compounded by the reluctance to play the role of the bad guys and
at the same time, to minimized upon the shock of the public from
the shaken confidence that even the security of jobs in the
statutory boards are now no different from that of those in the
private sectors, my personal belief is that in its formulating and
execution of the entire re-trimming and SRS program, the HDB
Management had been the victims of their subconscious pressure to
compensate their retrenched staff to the best of their
abilities.
In doing so, we cannot deny that the intention of the HDB
management has been well intended.
However due to the nature of its statutory board nature and the
origin of its source of funding to have come from the Singapore
Government and the tax payers, one cannot help but to frown on the
appropriateness of the events sequential happening.
Going back to previous event sequence as seen above, consider the
routing of an alternate possibility:
1)HDB Corp is actively recruiting.
2)HDB wants to trim down on staff strength.
3)Both HDB and HDB Corp work together to identify on the cluster of
existing HDB staff who are interested in a transfer to the new
establishment.
4)Interviewing takes place, and the selected 700 staff are
transferred to the new HDB Corp.
5)The remainant pool of HDB staff would then be offered the SRS
scheme.
6)Those who opted for the scheme would thus be discharged from
service.
As suggested by the above, it would have taken only the small
reversal of a few actions under the same situation to complete the
necessary.
Had the HDB management used a similar sequence to that of above,
there would have not been no need for HDB to wait 6 years to
recover back a portion of the sums as lost to the SRS
package.
Under the conditions of such trying times, think of the
alternatives in which the monies could have been spent on more
wisely.
For example, think about those lesser privileged few whom may be
from the lower or middle-low income clusters.
These fellow countrymen who may be having problems paying for their
sundries, loans or rentals for their tiny 3 or 2 room flats.
In comparison with the opportunity cost of the monies spent between
the choices of the monies being spent on a retrenchment package and
a year of rebates for some thousands families, it is hence
regrettable to say that thought the manner of handing had not in
breach of any legalistic framework, but under the challenge of
opportunity cost and appropriateness, the managements decision
certainly does not appear to fall into the best practice and
fitting category.
