My friend, who run a small company, shared this story with me. He hired a Singaporean and had to pay CPF, which is not required for a foreign worker. So, the Singaporean worker cost more.
After joining for a few weeks, the Singaporean was quite apologetic in telling the boss, "I have three weeks of reservist training in November". It was a few months ahead, but he had to tell the employer early as the employer had to find someone to cover the daily work during while the Singaporean went on the reservist training. For a small company, this can be disruptive. The company is struggling to keep afloat, so this type of disruption is not helpful.
This are regular occurrences that have to be faced. They cannot be swept under the carpet.
Tan Kin Lian
rex comments as follows,
ReplyDeleteis there need for national service (and its encumbrences as in reservist obligations) anymore?
Gurkas protect the MM's residence. We could pay for gurkas contingent to protect anything we want to protect!!!!
All the money spent on NS infrastructure and salaries, is surely enough to take care of paying the gurkas on contract basis. Think of how much land will be freed up, the army camps do occupy space! Our govt also built huge underground caverns in jurong to stockpile ammunition (bombs). For what?
I heard that Costa Rica has no army. You can google that. On December 1, 1948, President José Figueres Ferrer of Costa Rica abolished the military of Costa Rica after victory in the civil war in that year. ... Is Costa Rica anymore in danger of being swallowed up by maginary "enemies" than Singapore?
What enemies? We could do well to be absorbed into another country too, since the Govt already endorsed the idea that singapore is not a country.
We only need a standby Army to take care of national disasters like saving people from earthquake etc. Think of them as fireman and CD people. Since there are already so many FT's, gurka contingent is fine and acceptable for this job to protect anything we want to protect.
rex
The employee can apply for deferment. Under Enlistment Act, if he is new to the job, he can apply deferment to settle into his new job. Will it be successful? That depends on the unit. But the company cannot sack him because he had to go for reservist. The Enlistment act also protects the guy. If the company sack him because of reservist, the person in charge of the company might have to face a fine or/and jail terms.
ReplyDeleteWell, you can always come up with an excuse to sack someone rather than reservist, but the poor guy can also make a complaint to MOM as well.
There is a huge dichotomy & contradictions with respect to farmer reservists versus national defense policy.
ReplyDeleteWe spend billions of dollars on military hardware, infrastructure, pomp & pageantry, high salaries and big bonuses for regulars. But when it comes to the part-time soldiers on the ground, we are treated like manual labourers, limited human rights, and less than no respect.
The govt is so scared of offending PRs and foreigners that it staunchly supporting its no NS for PRs stance. I strongly believe that the govt should at the very least impose a NS tax for such PRs and of course foreigners on S-Pass and Employment Pass as well. These NS tax can go towards further supporting employers and/or reservists/NSF.
Everyday for the past 2 months, the air force has been flying F16s and F15s around my estate -- at least 3 or 4 flights a day. Everytime one F16 goes up, it costs $15,000 just in fuel. Double that cost for F15. I estimate half of these flights are just to prepare for national day.
Living allowances for SAF regulars in overseas posting can be $15K-$30K per month, *on top* of their already high salaries. SAF can spend $2 million dollars a month just to fly around the world to see demonstrations by weapons manufacturers.
SAF spends money literally like water -- it's just numbers on a computer screen to them. But when comes to compensating NSF with respectable salaries/allowances, or reservists and employers with just couple of thousand dollars of actual *rebates* -- sorry, it is your fate to serve without compensation.
chee ming, dont think mom will get involved if you are manager.
ReplyDeleteWith reservist liabilities, there is no level playing field in the job market between Singaporeans and foreigners. To be fair, you cannot blame the hiring company because it does not make commercial sense to hire Singaporeans if there are a ready pool of equally able foreigners to take his place. On the other hand, you cannot remove reservist training because it is a matter of national security. However, I think the government should compensate companies for hiring Singaporeans with reservist liabilities.
ReplyDeleteThe government should pay the company the worker's salary plus an extra X amount to compensate the company for the inconvenience caused by the worker's absence. If the government raises taxes as a result, then the cost is at least spread across all taxpayers which includes both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike. It is not fair for Singaporean males to bear the cost of national security alone while the rest enjoy the umbrella protection from our sacrifice and at the same time gain an advantage in the job market over the very people who made the sacrifice.
I think a fairer system will be best for everyone because it is unfairness that sow the seeds of discord between various groups in a society.
@Walau:
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that one have reached the position of manager and still get the boot. But if that happens, it's should be because of:
1) Incompetence; AND
2) Poor in office relation
The "AND" is very important. A person can be competent but poor in office relation. The management will keep him/her because that person is competent, but don't expect an easy raise in the company; A person good in office relation but not really a competent worker. That depends who is in power. If it's the kaki of that person, he/she will keep the job. If it's another faction, be careful.
Just my two cents worth.
@Spur & hyom:
I agree with both of you. In fact, I've been thinking, Enlistment Act gave government the right to take male citizens "away" up to 40 days. which is about one-and-half months! (A 40 days recall is rare but it happened before) I don't think any company will want to perceive the prospect of losing a worker for a period up to that long. (Actually, if a company can afford to lose the guy for 1 month-plus, I think he is disposable to the company)
Remember to add the cost of paying the CPF, plus the Medisave. A $2,000 take home pay for the guy translates to $2,310 (Including 14.5% CPF and 1% Medisave. Someone please correct this for me, I don't really know is it the correct calculation) bill for the employer, PLUS, the employer may lose the employee for up to 40 days in a year. How can that be attractive for any employer?
That's why I agree that foreign workers (laborers and talent alike) should pay tax for Singaporean male citizens' NS commitment. One, it can create a fairer playing ground for Singapore male citizens in the job market; Two, they are enjoying the security, thanks to NSmen, isn't it fair for them to pay a little "security tax" (put it bluntly, "protection money")?
Why get the employer to pay for the reservist's duties?
ReplyDeleteThe burden of payment should be on the Government to compensate the employer & the employee.
After all, its a shared belief that we live in dangerous neighbourhood.
The employer has already paid a price
- the missing employee
The employee has already paid a price
- his career prospects
The Gov is the only one that has not paid.
Instead it collected monies from all parties via many routes.
Gov must compensate the employer.. attractive enough to entice them to employ citizens.
Gov must compensate the employee.. attractive enough to entice citizens to defer their career prospects.