Recently a friend, age 60 worked with Company X for 30 years was 'redundant' stated in the letter, guess what was her package? @ 8 months payout. The company was smart and they use the word REDUNDANCY instead of RETRENCHMENT so a different mode of calculation formula is used. If retrenchment payout will be more for 30 years.
Understand that in their company exercise, those age 58 and above were the targets whether they are excellent or poor performers.
Those younger age who are under performer were not affected.
Mr Tan, based on your past experience as CEO
1. is the use of such words redundancy fair - resulted in the worker receive lesser payout than retrenchment?
2. the exercise of targeting 58 years and above - is it fair
3. the company is driving message be underperformer if you are under 58 you are safe.
4. whats your view if you are the company CEO? are they manipulating these staff?
It looks like such companies are following our leaders style i.e. manipulation of 'words' to benefit the company and in such case our MOM, TAFEP etc bodies are just useless.
Major retrenchment exercise etc, they should step in.
If I am correct majority of the staff affected are in this category. Sad, they have no one to turn to.
Let me get the views of other people to this issue, before giving my comments.