Changing Jobs after getting an EP

[bold_brave_spirit]

I just got a good role and had my EP approved. I'm on a contract role so my gig is for a year but could be extended and made perm. Who's to say?

I've been getting a lot of calls lately and some of the roles are an advancement for me. So I'm tempted to jump ship before the year is up.

Question: Once you've had an EP approved and are applying for a role with better pay, seniority, is it 'easier' to get an EP for that consecutive job? Or is each application pretty much a 'from scratch' application.

Also how does it work for the sake of not divulging to the current boss that you're looking. If you nail a new role, do you just do the EP in the background unbeknownst to your current boss?

Thanks!

[sundaymorningstaple]

Each application is treated from scratch, but habitually jumping jobs will hamper and could very well derail future employment. Especially considering they are looking for reasons to get rid of FTs.

[bold_brave_spirit]

Thanks. What's an FT?

[sundaymorningstaple]

FT : Foreign Talent

Maybe I used the wrong term here?

[bold_brave_spirit]

Thanks for clarifying. I seriously doubt that they will get rid of FT's or if they do try to roll it back, companies would really feel the pinch with resources and getting things done.

[sundaymorningstaple]

They have been rolling it back for the past 5 years. And it is getting tighter and a number of companies have shut their doors and moved to better locations where they can get the help they need. If the Gahment continues, more will be lost as well, but the PAP will do almost anything to ensure they remain in power and the citizens are the ones, in their ignorance, pushing to stop hiring foreigners. The minimum wages for the various passes in being increased as is the levies and they will continue to do so until the employers find that they just cannot afford the FT any more. The writing is on the wall. A search of this forum will show you numerous times renewals have been rejected "as you no long meet the new criteria".

[bold_brave_spirit]

Good to know...thats really interesting as I thought the allure of doing business here were was the ease of being able to run your business easily. But if you can't hire the people you need or you want, or if you can only do so at increasing costs, then it seems to go counter to the idea.

[Strong Eagle]

Good to know...thats really interesting as I thought the allure of doing business here were was the ease of being able to run your business easily. But if you can't hire the people you need or you want, or if you can only do so at increasing costs, then it seems to go counter to the idea.

Indeed. The gahmen is caught between a rock and a hard place on multiple fronts. It' is dealing with a citizenry ever more populist in nature, becoming more nationalistic, and blaming "foreigners" for everything from crime, to congestion, to no taxis, to stealing jobs, to being the root cause of low pay. They are pressuring the government to slow or stop both permanent immigration and temporary workers, even the EP types.

Yet when the government has choked off foreign talent, especially in the low income tiers, nobody in Singapore wants to do the job for the money being offered. Result: at the lower end, service companies like restaurants and bars go begging for help, must raise their prices and lose business, or get squeezed out of business because of rising rents and payrolls. Net effect: Cutting off low end talent does very little to increase the employment of locals but does reduce GDP and tax collections. Net effect: It's a losing policy but the locals scream and the last thing the PAP wants to do is lose an election.

The gahmen is dealing with local companies that are partly to blame and partly simply responding to global supply and demand. They will build their plants and offices where the cheaper labor is. And when Singapore makes it hard to import labor, the companies move or they outsource functions they don't need to do in Singapore. Net effect: Restrictions on foreign labor might cause a slight rise in local salaries but only to the extent that it remains cheaper than moving the job overseas.

Singapore's per capita income continues to climb but it's not matched by increases in productivity. So while Singapore is trying to vertically integrate, trying to build technology incubators, they've got the problem of a passive populace, wanting to be in charge without responsibility, and wanting to manage without creativity or accountability. Working 10 or 11 hour days is not productive and yet, far too many Singaporeans think this justifies a higher wage.

[the lynx]

Good to know...thats really interesting as I thought the allure of doing business here were was the ease of being able to run your business easily. But if you can't hire the people you need or you want, or if you can only do so at increasing costs, then it seems to go counter to the idea.

Indeed. The gahmen is caught between a rock and a hard place on multiple fronts. It' is dealing with a citizenry ever more populist in nature, becoming more nationalistic, and blaming "foreigners" for everything from crime, to congestion, to no taxis, to stealing jobs, to being the root cause of low pay. They are pressuring the government to slow or stop both permanent immigration and temporary workers, even the EP types.

Yet when the government has choked off foreign talent, especially in the low income tiers, nobody in Singapore wants to do the job for the money being offered. Result: at the lower end, service companies like restaurants and bars go begging for help, must raise their prices and lose business, or get squeezed out of business because of rising rents and payrolls. Net effect: Cutting off low end talent does very little to increase the employment of locals but does reduce GDP and tax collections. Net effect: It's a losing policy but the locals scream and the last thing the PAP wants to do is lose an election.

The gahmen is dealing with local companies that are partly to blame and partly simply responding to global supply and demand. They will build their plants and offices where the cheaper labor is. And when Singapore makes it hard to import labor, the companies move or they outsource functions they don't need to do in Singapore. Net effect: Restrictions on foreign labor might cause a slight rise in local salaries but only to the extent that it remains cheaper than moving the job overseas.

Singapore's per capita income continues to climb but it's not matched by increases in productivity. So while Singapore is trying to vertically integrate, trying to build technology incubators, they've got the problem of a passive populace, wanting to be in charge without responsibility, and wanting to manage without creativity or accountability. Working 10 or 11 hour days is not productive and yet, far too many Singaporeans think this justifies a higher wage.

Can't say it better than Strong Eagle!

Another point to note, because of this issue, many companies have started to invest on automation and AI to remove the need of manual and low-skill labour. It may be a high one-time cost but we are talking about machines that have no human right, unlimited hours and no downtime.

What to do? Want everything cheap cheap but ask for salary high high. Handbag must be LV LV while watches must be Rolex Rolex. Tax also must low low. Then how to protect social benefits?

[bold_brave_spirit]

This is such an education for me. Thanks guys....and you know what? I can see that attitude even in the day to day work. I couldn't place it until you explained it.

Singaporeans should live in Canada where I'm from - taxes are about 50% at the end of the day. Then you'll see some REAL complaining i imagine.