PR application 1 week after receiving S pass (Australian)

[sundaymorningstaple]

There's there rule, and there are always exceptions to it. There are morals and ethics, but in relational to what? Am I more duty bound to my employer? Or am I more duty bound to my family? Answer me that.

That ones easy. Which is why I don't understand why you signed a contract for so little money. Ethically you should have not taken a position that couldn't support your family and basing all on a gamble of getting PR.

Are you really taking the high road if your stubbornness to fulfill the terms of your contract equate to a huge impact on your family?

You created the impact on your family by taking a job in a foreign country that couldn't support you family in the first place. Think for a moment what you are saying.

It's great to be sitting up yonder on a high horse and wag the finger at those passing below. But you sound like a somewhat jaded individual whom seems to always prefer taking a dim view of society at large.

Yes I used to run my own business and I was an employer. And currently I am responsible for employing and managing a large team. One thing I will never do is hold someone as hostage to their circumstances to restrict their right to negotiate for a fair and deserved wage.

So why did you, with so much experience, let yourself be held hostage? Something doesn't quite ring true.

Sorry, but the attitude that rules & contracts, entered into with ones eyes wide open, are meant to be broken, does not carry too much weight nor respect. Good luck. As it sounds like you are being held hostage by both your employer and your wife. Sure glad I'm not in your shoes......

[Allibert]

I guess he'll have to hope that his wife is not the same as him. Otherwise, she might think that the piece of paper she signed isn;t worth much either and look for better options

[Mezman]

Well basically, I moved to Singapore because my wife wanted to have a baby here as this is where her home and family is. It's that simple. I would rather have stayed in Australia to tell the truth, but I made the decision to move because she's the most important thing in my life.

Yes I did take a gamble coming to Singapore to get my PR, but making her happy was worth the gamble. If it didn't work out, we could always move back but naturally hope that it wouldn't come to that.

The odds of me getting PR were always pretty high given that I was both born here and married to a Singapore Citizen. And we're currently living with her parents so it's not like we're risking being on the street. Why did I accept this job? Because it was a means to an end.

If it wasn't for the fact that I needed the sponsorship, no I would not have accepted the job plain and simple. The terms of contract were absolutely awful. But again, it was simply a means to an end.

Sure I could have held out for longer, but I'm sure you're all aware of the state of the current employment market. I may be experienced, but it's not in a specialised field and further to that I'm not degree qualified. Something that is valued highly in Singapore irrespective of experience. Couple with that the fact that most jobs are only open to PR or citizens, one takes what one can get to accomplish his goals.

So basically what you're saying is that all those people whom are tied into workplace agreements, irrespective of what country they're in, that have obviously been structured to take advantage of their current circumstance, should maintain that status quo even if they are finally given a break?

I suppose you think that abused wives should stay in a broken marriage purely to preserve the sanctity of a spoken promise?

Using the recently abolished Australian Workplace Agreements as an example since I'm still not to familiar with Singapore, you're saying if one finds themselves locked into a contract that strips them of all their basic rights to sick leave and overtime due to loopholes in the new legislation, they should ignore any opportunity to leave just to maintain the nobility and honor of contract fulfillment?

In many instances where people are blatantly breaching contracts for the pure sake of persuing something better, then I would also agree with you. But every circumstance is unique and for everyone to be tarred with the same brush is a rather unfair generalisation.

I've already given my company (not my agency) the heads up and they fully understand my actions and support my decisions because they know all too well the way agencies operate. And if they understand, then it gives me additional comfort that I'm doing the right thing.

Making the sweeping statement that I'm morally or ethically corrupt because I'm breaching my contract is just as unfair a generalisation that SMS for example was out of work for 15 months (according to another thread) because he was lazy. Sure the reality may fall either way and there's no way for anyone else to know but I choose to believe the best in a person, not the worse.

[IronMac]

So, let's just cut to the chase; you took a contract where you knew that the conditions were going to be tough but that you would break it the first chance you get? Hrmmm...

Well, good luck with that sort of thing. Frankly, I think that you will find yourself in a pickle soon enough. Companies over here do work you like a dog and they do prize degrees over experience so those are two more strikes against you.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Mezman

You are typical of your ilk. When popular opinion is against your lack of morals and ethics you lash out at others in order to try to deflect scorn away from yourself. Pretty pathetic. They should give your honorary citizenship here as you like a lot of the myopic masses here, blame all their lack of morals and ethics on pragmatism - you fit right in. I can only imagine what type of children you might raise, morally that is......

Good luck, you are going to need it.

NB: you are right in one aspect though. I'm happy to say that I do have principles and I do live by them. Sure I had offers during that 15 month period but I told the employers up front that if I accept the salary they are offering it won't stop the bleeding so I'll have to keep on looking if I accepted their position. My current employer accepted those conditions. He created the position for me (it didn't exist before I joined the company) and also stopped the bleeding after my 3 months probation. But unlike you, I was upfront about it at the time of the initial interview. But it's become pretty obvious you wouldn't know anything about things like that....

[jpatokal]

You are typical of your ilk. When popular opinion is against your lack of morals and ethics you lash out at others in order to try to deflect scorn away from yourself. Pretty pathetic. They should give your honorary citizenship here as you like a lot of the myopic masses here, blame all their lack of morals and ethics on pragmatism - you fit right in.

Oh give me a f'''ing break and get off your high horse already. Do you think mezman's company would have had even the tiniest hesitation to fire him before the end of the contract period if they thought they could make more money that way? You know as well as I do that the answer is "no" and that most companies here give absolute priority to the almighty buck over morals and ethics, so why on earth should mezman be "loyal" to them?

[sundaymorningstaple]

That attitude is part of the problem here. You should also take up citizenship as well. Do unto others before they do unto you? Part of the problem with the whole bloody world today innit?. Another one with no scruples? No wonder the worlds in the shape it's in.

It's a damn shame so few do have principles.

[jpatokal]

That attitude is part of the problem here. You should also take up citizenship as well. Do unto others before they do unto you? Part of the problem with the whole bloody world today innit?. Another one with no scruples? No wonder the worlds in the shape it's in. It's a damn shame so few do have principles.

Loyalty has to be earned. I'm loyal to my family, to my friends, to my colleagues, to people who count on me and who I can count on. My business practices are ethical, because I understand that keeping a customer happy in the long term is worth more than the short-term gain from screwing them over.

But a company is not a human being with morals, ethics or scruples, it's a legal device for maximizing profit, and it's only the law that holds it in check. I sign contracts with companies that lay out our mutual obligations, I follow those obligations, and I expect companies that I contract with to carry out their obligations as well. I do not expect them to be "loyal" beyond the terms spelled out in the contract, and they have absolutely no right to expect such loyalty from me.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I do not expect them to be "loyal" beyond the terms spelled out in the contract, and they have absolutely no right to expect such loyalty from me.

And that, my friend, is exactly what this is all about. The OP signed a contract to work for a fixed period of time (which initially coincides with the expiration date of his S pass.) The employer, signed as his sponsor, to give him a foothold in Singapore. The employer also usually has costs to do so, included productivity costs to get the guy up to speed, or licensed, or trained. For that and the additional liabilities (and there are legal liabilities taking on S Pass & WP holders) the employer has to balance the length of the contract with the investment made. So, to wit, I agree, the employer should be able to expect the terms of the initial contract to be kept. It this case, the OP did not.

Loyalty beyond that, has to be earned, I agree, but in this case the guy came, joined, and quit in 4.5 months. Sorry, but if that's the way you believe in doing business, I sure don't want a contract with your company.

[jpatokal]

And that, my friend, is exactly what this is all about. The OP signed a contract to work for a fixed period of time (which initially coincides with the expiration date of his S pass.)

There is no breach of contract. The OP's contract included the option to resign with a notice period, and he exercised the option. End of story.

Let's put this the other way around -- I sign a contract to provide consulting services to a company for a year, and the contract has a similar no-fault escape clause. After six months, my client says thanks but my services are not needed anymore. Is the company being "unethical"?

The employer, signed as his sponsor, to give him a foothold in Singapore. The employer also usually has costs to do so, included productivity costs to get the guy up to speed, or licensed, or trained. For that and the additional liabilities (and there are legal liabilities taking on S Pass & WP holders) the employer has to balance the length of the contract with the investment made.

This is the employer's problem, and if the OP is to be believed, they more than made up for it by paying him a starvation wage...

[sundaymorningstaple]

This is the employer's problem, and if the OP is to be believed, they more than made up for it by paying him a starvation wage...

Sorry, but nobody forced him to sign on the dotted line for that wage. He joined the company with no intention of staying for the duration of his first contract. Reread his 1st post. Trying to see it in any other bent is just to support your own ethics ...... Have it your way (You may not always be right, but you're never wrong, correct?).

I'm just glad I still have my set of ethics - you may consider them old fashioned. But I was brought up when I didn't even need a piece of paper. My word or handshake was my bond and I still live by that today. Out of fashion? Maybe, but the world wouldn't be in the mess it's in today if more went back to that.