WHILE the joint reply by the Singapore National Employers
Federation, the Ministry of Manpower and the National Trades Union
Congress on Thursday is heartening ('Less than 3% of private firms
cut older workers' wages'), how many government and
government-linked companies implement the wage cut for older
workers?
From our experience with Singapore Airlines (SIA), it was simply
the extraction of the maximum cut permissible under the law,
without any due regard given to the reasonable mitigation factors
provided under the legislation.
It was really a case of no cut, no job. This was despite the
fact that there was no change other than the pilot turning 60 years
old.
What is worse is that of late, SIA Cargo has come up with a
scheme that will employ a national pilot beyond age 62 only on a
daily-rated basis. There is no assurance of any minimum level of
monthly income. Effectively, that would be a wage cut beyond 10 per
cent.
As pilots, we can work up to age 65, legally. Here is a company
that has been struggling to stay above water, and yet it is willing
to hire the more expensive expatriate pilot on a longer contract
term, with the attendant costs such as housing and child
allowances.
Why are they denying the national pilot, who helped build up the
national icon, the same opportunity of a job until the end of his
useful working life?
We are not asking for freebies, merely fairness and equity.
How can one, and a national at that, be denied a job, or even be
offered unfavourable terms, just because of his age?
I know that efforts are being made at all levels to change the
mindset and to discourage discrimination based on age, but for this
lifelong employment initiative to really take off, all government
and government-linked companies must be directed to take the lead
and do the right thing.
Captain P. James
President
Air Line Pilots Association - Singapore
