Too Few Singaporeans Hired .... (Straits Times)

[Barnsley]

Hiring too few S'poreans: 38 firms flagged

Out of the 150 firms that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) called in for talks over the past year, 38 have been identified for "closer scrutiny" for not doing enough to hire and groom Singaporeans, Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say said yesterday, giving the breakdown for the first time.

These firms will have their Employment Pass (EP) applications looked at more closely by the ministry, and could even be banned from hiring foreign professionals if they do not co-operate, he added.

They will be asked to provide details for EP applications, such as the number of Singaporeans who applied and were interviewed for the posts, and whether existing Singaporean employees were considered for the posts.

"Should there be 'double weak' firms that are unresponsive or uncooperative, they will have their EP privileges curtailed," said Mr Lim in a post on the MOM blog.

He was referring to companies with a low ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners compared with the industry average, and who are weak in their commitment to fair consideration of Singaporeans when it comes to hiring and developing staff.

Mr Lim said this additional scrutiny was part of MOM's efforts to enhance the Fair Consideration Framework, introduced last year to get companies to look for suitable Singaporeans before hiring foreign professionals.

On top of the 150 firms, another 100 firms were also identified for MOM to work with as they have unusually high proportions of foreigners for their industries, which include infocomm, finance and insurance, construction, and wholesale trade.

The ministry will instruct firms on its watchlist to step up efforts to train and upgrade Singaporean professionals, managers and executives, and transfer knowledge from foreign staff to Singaporeans, said Mr Lim.

"Over time, more Singaporeans will be qualified to take on these opportunities and challenges," he added.

Why doesnt the Govt name names?

[rajagainstthemachine]

we had a local - fresh out of school, our company took him, trained him for a year, paid him a stipend and he left for greener pastures.. what is the company's motivation to train locals in this case?

[ecureilx]

we had a local - fresh out of school, our company took him, trained him for a year, paid him a stipend and he left for greener pastures.. what is the company's motivation to train locals in this case?

Well, in my workplace a Fresh Grad foreigner was employed and Six months later he says he will leave when his 1 year EP is up, though he initially sounded very grateful when 'he got the job, as nobody wanted a fresh graduate. .. and he was pleasantly surprised at the starting pay...

Just saying...

[calugaruvaxile]

huge blow for SBS!

[zzm9980]

we had a local - fresh out of school, our company took him, trained him for a year, paid him a stipend and he left for greener pastures.. what is the company's motivation to train locals in this case?

That is not a quality unique to any one nationality or ethnic group.

[x9200]

If a company provides a stipend, there should a bond in place. Same for any more extensive/expensive training.

[Strong Eagle]

If a company provides a stipend, there should a bond in place. Same for any more extensive/expensive training.

Why? Sounds like you treat your employees as chattel property. Sounds like a shit company to work for... yes, we will give you some training so that you are a better employee for our company but we don't trust you... this is such Asian thinking.

A company that values its employees wants them to become better in every way. And employees that are valued don't jump ship just because they received some training.

[x9200]

If a company provides a stipend, there should a bond in place. Same for any more extensive/expensive training.

Why? Sounds like you treat your employees as chattel property. Sounds like a shit company to work for... yes, we will give you some training so that you are a better employee for our company but we don't trust you... this is such Asian thinking.

A company that values its employees wants them to become better in every way. And employees that are valued don't jump ship just because they received some training.

Let's not be hypocrites, trust always has its limits and there is nothing wrong in some risk managements, especially for the fresh graduates where about everything is a lottery. You may value your employees if they are good employees or you value the bad ones too? It is also very naive to expect somebody just employed will appreciate (as of the average) you being trustful and fair. They will jump the ship as soon as something better paid emerges.

Besides, I said extensive/expensive training.

[Strong Eagle]

Let's not be hypocrites, trust always has its limits and there is nothing wrong in some risk managements, especially for the fresh graduates where about everything is a lottery.

Tell that to Google or Quicken or Anadarko Petroleum of any of the 10/100 best companies to work for in the USA and see what the reaction is.

If you're a shit boss working in a shit company, fear, threats, and an oppressive work culture are the only way to control employees. If you value your employees, you live with the few that don't pan out because their cost to you is far less than the value gained. Employee loyalty is a powerful thing. I see it daily in the small company I am working for... rated 4 years in a row as one of the best small businesses to work for in Houston.

There is nothing hypocritical in this at all. What is hypocritical is treating your employees like crap, like chattel property, then wondering why they leave for $25 more per month.

[x9200]

Let's not be hypocrites, trust always has its limits and there is nothing wrong in some risk managements, especially for the fresh graduates where about everything is a lottery.

Tell that to Google or Quicken or Anadarko Petroleum of any of the 10/100 best companies to work for in the USA and see what the reaction is.

If you're a shit boss working in a shit company, fear, threats, and an oppressive work culture are the only way to control employees. If you value your employees, you live with the few that don't pan out because their cost to you is far less than the value gained. Employee loyalty is a powerful thing. I see it daily in the small company I am working for... rated 4 years in a row as one of the best small businesses to work for in Houston.

There is nothing hypocritical in this at all. What is hypocritical is treating your employees like crap, like chattel property, then wondering why they leave for $25 more per month.

Repeating the same strong words or phrases while ignoring the main points of the opponent is a popular technique in this sort of discussions but I don't think it will take us anywhere. Or you were just interested in making statements? Wake up man, don't assume it's all the evil. The world is not black and white and the employer can still value his or her staff protecting himself from opportunistic job hoppers at the same time. Note, these hoppers can be good as of their technical skills but just opportunistic and like it or not, some people will never be loyal. More-over, you may have no chance to show your appreciation in monetary value as there could be a huge machine behind operating slowly based on their SOPs. This is the Singapore reality for many companies bigger and middle size.

The trainings benefits the company but how they can benefit the company if the staff leaves? This is not about fear or terror or anything you so happily tend to assume but the discipline. Look for example at my company, middle size corporation, if I go for a few $1k training I have to sign a bond for a 6 months or so (prorated basis if I decide to leave). This is nothing but fair. It's a very good company (as of Singapore) in respect of all its social benefits etc. etc. Nobody feels treated like crap or a property because of this. Our salaries are more than decent. How does it fit to your overly pessimistic puzzle?

[Strong Eagle]

Whatever. The vast majority of companies in the world don't require a bond to provide training. What does that tell you about the shit attitudes in Asia?

[x9200]

I doubt this is true for any really expensive training and the "vast majority" part.

[nakatago]

I once was told by someone who's ethnically Chinese to "ride a donkey until you find a horse."

[ecureilx]

I once was told by someone who's ethnically Chinese to "ride a donkey until you find a horse."

That applies anywhere in Asia I guess ...

[bro75]

I think bonds are reasonable for external training of new less experienced employees where the cost of training is high. In highly competitive industries with low margins, many companies cannot afford to take the risk of a trained new employee flying off after just a few months of external training. What I do not agree with are bonds for on-the-job training where the "training" is actually already real work.