Layoffs in HGST Singapore

[Wd40]

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/hg ... t-exercise

Further evidence that companies are moving away from Singapore.

This was decided about three years ago, and employees were informed in November

2 interesting points:
1) Its takes 3 years from the time a company decides to close a unit to actually execute it.

2) Its so immoral of the company to inform its staff just 1 month before actually closing the company, when they knew it all along for 3 years.

[PNGMK]

Actually what really sucks is the union patsy Mr Heng. Read this below and tell me he wasn't paid off in some manner?

Heng Chee How, executive secretary of the United Workers of Electrical and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), oversaw the retrenchment exercise on Friday morning.

HGST said workers will be receiving compensation packages pegged to industry standards.

Mr Heng said UWEEI is saddened by this retrenchment exercise but understood that the company faces keen challenges to maintain cost competitiveness.

He said HGST has committed to UWEEI to ensure fair compensation and treatment for the affected employees.

Unions here SUCK.

[Beeroclock]

Unions here SUCK.

I didn't realise they existed here!

[Strong Eagle]

Unions here SUCK.

I didn't realise they existed here!

They exist... what do you think NTUC stands for? It's just that they have been so thoroughly neutered under Singapore law, the most they can do is bleat.

They serve up pablum instead of going after workers rights.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Don't get me started.

[PNGMK]

Unions here SUCK.

I didn't realise they existed here!

They exist... what do you think NTUC stands for? It's just that they have been so thoroughly neutered under Singapore law, the most they can do is bleat.

They serve up pablum instead of going after workers rights.

Exactly, and if you can get a frank opinion from a Singaporean with some awareness of the way things work they will tell you how much they despise the overpaid NTUC drones and how they view them as a fith column of the PAP.

[ScoobyDoes]

2 interesting points:
1) Its takes 3 years from the time a company decides to close a unit to actually execute it.

2) Its so immoral of the company to inform its staff just 1 month before actually closing the company, when they knew it all along for 3 years.

'The company says it is relocating one of its production lines to Thailand, citing rising operating costs in Singapore. About half of the production line has already moved to Thailand, and the move will be completed in six months' time.'

If half of production has already been moved, and the next half takes six months then it takes a year to shift production. To then say workers have been given only a month's notice you're basically saying they are a bit dim if they haven't been seeing what's been coming the last six months.

Whilst 'formal' notification may only be a month, the company only has to meet contractual terms AND if notification had been any earlier, can you imagine how many may have left too early to complete the move?

[bro75]

2 interesting points:
1) Its takes 3 years from the time a company decides to close a unit to actually execute it.

2) Its so immoral of the company to inform its staff just 1 month before actually closing the company, when they knew it all along for 3 years.

'The company says it is relocating one of its production lines to Thailand, citing rising operating costs in Singapore. About half of the production line has already moved to Thailand, and the move will be completed in six months' time.'

If half of production has already been moved, and the next half takes six months then it takes a year to shift production. To then say workers have been given only a month's notice you're basically saying they are a bit dim if they haven't been seeing what's been coming the last six months.

Whilst 'formal' notification may only be a month, the company only has to meet contractual terms AND if notification had been any earlier, can you imagine how many may have left too early to complete the move?

That a company met contractual terms during retrenchment only means that what the company did was legal. It does not say anything about the morality/ethics of it which is WD40's argument.
Yes, many would have left early knowing that a company is closing. Who wouldn't. Protect yourself first. The most ethical companies would give very early notices to employees about outsourcing plans and then will give them a big bonus for staying on until the closure. Other companies will just sit on the info and then surprise the employees with a retrenchment announcement.

[ecureilx]

If half of production has already been moved, and the next half takes six months then it takes a year to shift production. To then say workers have been given only a month's notice you're basically saying they are a bit dim if they haven't been seeing what's been coming the last six months.

Whilst 'formal' notification may only be a month, the company only has to meet contractual terms AND if notification had been any earlier, can you imagine how many may have left too early to complete the move?

+ .. in production lines, the grapevine network is powerful ..

I know, since a friends employer was negotiating for a sale, and almost everybody in the company knew it, more than six months before it became official

Same for another company, when they were proposing a merger, and the Due diligence was going on, only the dumbest didn't believe life is going to be ok

Back to NTUC, well, I know NTUC has stepped in for a friend who sought early retirement and NTUC negotiated a larger payoff, vs the initial offer by the employer .. more than double ..

so as a union member, he did get some benefit for the 9$ a month

[ScoobyDoes]

'The company says it is relocating one of its production lines to Thailand, citing rising operating costs in Singapore. About half of the production line has already moved to Thailand, and the move will be completed in six months' time.'

If half of production has already been moved, and the next half takes six months then it takes a year to shift production. To then say workers have been given only a month's notice you're basically saying they are a bit dim if they haven't been seeing what's been coming the last six months.

Whilst 'formal' notification may only be a month, the company only has to meet contractual terms AND if notification had been any earlier, can you imagine how many may have left too early to complete the move?

That a company met contractual terms during retrenchment only means that what the company did was legal. It does not say anything about the morality/ethics of it which is WD40's argument.
Yes, many would have left early knowing that a company is closing. Who wouldn't. Protect yourself first. The most ethical companies would give very early notices to employees about outsourcing plans and then will give them a big bonus for staying on until the closure. Other companies will just sit on the info and then surprise the employees with a retrenchment announcement.

You've even enforced my point.......'Protect yourself first.'

Suddenly what's good for the employee isn't good for the company?

As a business owner, my responsibility is first to the business and second to the employees. It's harsh, yes, but business and so long as all legal requirements are met then ethics don't have a part to play. As you've pointed out, it wouldn't work in the other direction so why should the company be any better?

[bro75]

'The company says it is relocating one of its production lines to Thailand, citing rising operating costs in Singapore. About half of the production line has already moved to Thailand, and the move will be completed in six months' time.'

If half of production has already been moved, and the next half takes six months then it takes a year to shift production. To then say workers have been given only a month's notice you're basically saying they are a bit dim if they haven't been seeing what's been coming the last six months.

Whilst 'formal' notification may only be a month, the company only has to meet contractual terms AND if notification had been any earlier, can you imagine how many may have left too early to complete the move?

That a company met contractual terms during retrenchment only means that what the company did was legal. It does not say anything about the morality/ethics of it which is WD40's argument.
Yes, many would have left early knowing that a company is closing. Who wouldn't. Protect yourself first. The most ethical companies would give very early notices to employees about outsourcing plans and then will give them a big bonus for staying on until the closure. Other companies will just sit on the info and then surprise the employees with a retrenchment announcement.

You've even enforced my point.......'Protect yourself first.'

Suddenly what's good for the employee isn't good for the company?

As a business owner, my responsibility is first to the business and second to the employees. It's harsh, yes, but business and so long as all legal requirements are met then ethics don't have a part to play. As you've pointed out, it wouldn't work in the other direction so why should the company be any better?

I agree with you that with business decisions legally ethics does not have to play any part although for some it does (mostly for PR purposes). I am only stating that legal is not equal to ethical. Should you inform your employees if you have plans to retrench them in the future but could not afford for them to leave you now? That is up to your personal principles. Now ethics is very subjective, so I will not argue that what any company does during retrenchment is unethical unless it is obvious.

[AndrewV]

I heard a rumor about SAP laying off quite a few of it's staff in the singapore office
anyone can verify this?