Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Job Loss Watch
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14177
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deutsche Bank is a responsible employer...
As far as taking care of its retrenched employees is concerned, Duetsche Bank is doing what any other banks would do when retrenching their staff. They made sure that the staff would be duly compensated for their services with the bank. In this case, most of the equity department staff are employees and are covered by the Employment Act and would appropriately receive a retrenchment package before leaving the bank for good.

This is what was posted in theindependent.sg on this retrenchment exercise,

'The Deutsche bank spokeswoman assured the press that the bank would be directly in touch with employees. She added: “We understand these changes affect people’s lives profoundly and we will do whatever we can to be as responsible and sensitive as possible implementing these changes.”

Deutsche Bank’s Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing called the retrenchment exercise part of a “restart.” In a letter to employees, he wrote: “We are creating a bank that will be more profitable, leaner, more innovative and more resilient.”'

Supposing that the equity staff of Deutsche Bank were agents of the bank like remisiers, would Deutsche Bank treat them just as fairly and compassionately as the bank treats its employees? Employees or agents of banks, in a retrenchment exercise when a bank closes down a department and people's lives are profoundly affected, any decent bank, the management of any decent bank, would likely treat them with grave responsibility and sensitivity. Any bank or management would be expected to treat their employees or agents whose livelihood are gravely and negatively impacted by their restructuring or retrenchment exercise to make the bank profitable with great sensitivity and compassion. Doing otherwise would reflect badly on the conscience and reputation of the management of the bank.

Would there be banks that would treat their retrenched staff or agents badly, inhumanly, insensitively in such a dreadful time when livelihoods are at stake? What kind of people would act so harshly and dismissively to their staff, agents or partners in business? What kind of respect would one have on such people if they could treat their staff, agents and partners poorly, miserly while they continue to receive their fat and comfortable pay while the retrenched leave the bank without the assurance of a job and with very little compensation?

I think and believe Deutsche Bank would do as spoken by its spokewoman. For if they were only giving lip service and do otherwise, the retrenched staff are not going to leave with a bad feeling for the bank but may even seek redress with the authority. Some may see their MPs or Ministers or even go to see the PM to pour out their grouses. The publicity would be very bad for the bank thereafter even if there is a compromise solution subsequently. Any bank in such a situation should think carefully not to ill treat their employees, agents or partners and think they can get away with it by under compensating the affected staff, agents or partners.

Would there be any irresponsible bank in Singapore that would treat their staff, agents and partners unfairly in the event of a retrenchment or restructuring exercise?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14177
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not enough good jobs for Singaporeans?
That day my friend told me about this very worrying trend of more and more jobs being temporary basis.

Many been saying more and more jobs offer, all actually only available for 6 months period after that cancel, will have to be renewed. I find this trend very worrying, because there is no job security like that, work 6 months end up being jobless against. It is not worth it.
My friend has been finding it hard to find jobs in this market. The government talks a good deal about creating good jobs, but Singaporeans do not want jobs like this. The government comes in and say they are going to reduce foreigners. In the end only cut those low-paying jobs Singaporeans do not want to do. What’s the matter with them?....

The government should focus more efforts on hiring our own Singaporeans instead of always relying on foreign talents who are not as loyal. It is a shame when we work hard in our own country but end up no employer want us just because they only care about degrees and diplomas, or worse, foreigners.

Frustrated local

The above is extracted from a post in TRE, Not enough good jobs for locals. Is this true? Cannot be, Singapore has 2m foreigners working here and many are having good jobs with good pay in the CBD area, in Raffles Place and MBFC. Look at the number of foreigners in these places, they out numbered Singaporeans which means there are many good paying jobs but going to foreigners, not to Singaporeans. The big question is why?

We have a govt that is elected by the people and everyday spouting slogans that they are for Singaporeans, creating good jobs for Singaporeans. Then why are there so many happy foreigners in good jobs and so many unhappy Singaporeans unable to find good jobs here? The number of foreigners in Raffles Place and MBFC is a fact. The number of unhappy Singaporeans unable to find good jobs, unable to find full time jobs can only be heard in social media not in the main media. Who is telling the truth and who is telling lies?

The next GE would tell the truth. If there are many unhappy Singaporeans unable to find good jobs, then they are likely to vote opposition. If Singaporeans are retrenched for whatever reasons, like restructuring, they would not vote for the PAP. But this is only an assumption. The unemployed or retrenched Singaporeans may be so stupid that despite losing their jobs, despite unable to get permanent jobs while foreigners can, would still vote for PAP.

The other fact is that maybe the number of unhappy and unemployed Singaporeans is too small to make a difference and therefore the PAP would still win with big margin, a confirmation that the PAP is doing the right thing and the majority of Singaporeans is supporting the PAP. Or the number of happy foreigners, now new citizens are so large, or at least more than unhappy Singaporeans, so the result is determined by them, the happily employed new citizens.

Which is the truth?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14177
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jobless Singaporean's letter to Hsien Loong
Dear Honourable Prime Minister,

In the spirit of Smart Nation, I recently pursued a digital innovation subject, from Berkeley University, one of the top 10 in USA; and returned back to Singapore in Nov 2018, excited to serve my country with my upgraded skillset; seeking a job; but I am not given a chance. Just because I am now an “old PMET” in my mid40s.

I really want a chance to contribute to building Singapore’s digital economy with my ICT-cum-Business Project Management skillset but nobody in the past 5 months is interested. I do have this skillset required to contribute to the success of Digital Transformation projects, as certified by Berkeley University. If a decent qualified and proven skilled PMET jobseeker cannot find an entry-level PMET job, what more for those less qualified and skilled? I reach out to you because I deeply believe in the government systems. In my mid40s now with no job, how to sustain with no job until the new retirement age endorsed in our National Day Rally Speech?....

The above is part of an article posted in TRE under this title, Prof Tommy Koh's Article on SG PMETs: My Personal Encounter on....

I am at a complete loss of what Singapore has become and would appreciate your guidance here. Many Thanks, Mr Prime Minister.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxx (author’s name removed)

Singapore Democrats

The above is part of an article posted in TRE under this title, Prof Tommy Koh's Article on SG PMETs: My Personal Encounter on.... Such pathetic predicaments are affecting more and more Singaporeans even as young as 40+ and no one seems to care except to give lip service support. At 40, this is not even at the prime of his age and with another 40 more years to live, how is this person going to finish his life journey? This is a common and pitiful story affecting more and more Singaporeans.

When looking at the first paragraph of his letter about Berkeley as one of the top universities in the world, it quickly struck me that this was his first mistake. He should not have gone to study in the USA. And he should not waste his time in Berkeley. He should have gone to India instead and enrol himself in Uptron, or Ultron private schools or something like that. Then his future would be brighter. He could then look forward to becoming an MD in some American MNCs in Singapore. Berkeley is a definite no.

Another big minus in his resume is that he is a Singaporean. Singapore has no value in Singapore. Singaporeans are seen as lazy and stupid and unemployeable in Singapore, both by Singapore and foreign HR people. It would be better if he take up a PR in India, taking advantage of the favourable CECA, then return to Singapore as a foreign Indian talent. His chances of being employed would more than doubled or tripled.

Singaporeans are really stupid and after so many years still cannot see through the mist and myths in the job market in Singapore. Singaporeans are at the bottom of the wanted list. Stop bragging about good degrees from Singapore's world best universities or from American world best universities. The best and most marketable university degrees in Singapore are from India and from degree mills.

No degree is better than having a degree if one can do the job. A degree is a piece of waste paper. A degree from top universities is as good as an expensive piece of waster paper, like this Berkeley degree.

Wake up Singaporeans. Stop wasting money getting a good degree from a good university. Any degree will do. The faker or fakest degree would have a better chance to get one a good job, maybe a MD or CEO of a MNC, if you call yourself a foreign talent.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14177
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say No to CECA Rally at Hong Lim

Above are some pics of the protest Rally against CECA and the reckless increase in population in this tiny piece of rock. (pictures are posted in www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg)It was initially said to increase to 6.9m but the govt backtracked after the biggest turnout at Hong Lim Park against the Population White Paper organised by Gilbert Goh. The govt apologetically said 6.9m was only a planning parameter, not meant to be.

Now Heng Swee Kiat has on record said that 10m is the target in the future, for economic growth. What economic growth? 1% or 2% is good enough excuse to raise the population to 10m? What about the adverse effects of over crowding, an island full of shit and wildlife stealing the jobs of Singaporeans, stealing the lunches of Singaporeans and eventually stealing the whole island when the foreigners become a majority here?

The turnout at Hong Lim last Saturday showed that the people are concerned, unhappy and angry with the CECA and increasing population. They bothered to turn up to show their support and to show how angry they were to CECA.

In Parliament, other than MPs from the opposition parties, apparently everyone is for it and supporting this CECA. No one has stood up to speak against it. So it must be a good thing in Parliament to have this CECA.

Ask yourself, did you vote for a MP that support this CECA? If you do, you deserve to pay for the consequences for your own action. You voted for the CECA.

PS. Guess what was behind the black ink on the banner behind the stage.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14177
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CECA - what is real and what is fake news
'Among these was the claim that CECA has allowed Indian nationals to take PMET (professional, managerial, executive and technician) jobs away from Singaporeans.

Mr Chan clarified that all FTAs, including CECA, place no obligations on Singapore with regard to immigration.

"Indian professionals, like any other professionals from other countries, have to meet MOM's (Ministry of Manpower's) existing qualifying criteria to work in Singapore. This applies to Employment Pass, S Pass, and work permit.

"Second, CECA does not give Indian nationals privileged immigration access. Anyone applying for Singapore citizenship must qualify according to our existing criteria," said Mr Chan....

While Mr Chan acknowledged that economic uncertainties have created anxieties over job security, he asserted that perpetuating fear, is not the right response.

"We understand, and we share Singaporeans' concerns with competition and job prospects in the current uncertain economic environment. But the way to help Singaporeans is not to mislead them and create fear and anger," said Mr Chan....

Mr Chan said that MOM is aware of companies that have breached fair hiring practices and will weed them out to protect Singaporean workers and businesses.
Source: CNA/hs
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/chan-chun-sing-clarifies-ceca-ramesh-erramalli-12078768

In the above report Chan Chun Sing explained that while Singapore allows Indian nationals to work in Singapore under CECA terms, Singapore's Immigration rules still override the terms in the CECA to protect the interests of Singaporeans. What about the special clauses that allow 127 Indian professions to come in with no need to check their qualifications, in a way recognising every and any shit institutions in India?

In 2017, the Indian govt threatened to sue the Singapore govt for tightening the immigration rules to regulate the free flow of Indian nationals under the CECA terms.

India had signed its first ever CECA with Singapore in August, 2005, under which both sides have a preferential tariff arrangement for over 80 product lines. Besides, India and Singapore enjoy greater access in services and investment under CECA.

The CECA's second review was launched in May, 2010, but since then the review had been held up mainly on two important issues. One is allowing Indian banks to Singapore and second the free movement of Indian professionals. I think this has been enhanced since to make it easier for the Indian professionals to come in, unchecked.

The Singapore government, in its effort to reduce reliance on foreign workers, passed the ‘Employment Pass Framework’ in 2010 under which the foreign share of the total workforce has to be brought down to around one-third by the companies located there, while encouraging employers to invest in productivity in return for incentives in the form of tax breaks. Is this being practised in Singapore's 'Chennai' Business Park in Changi? There have been so many eyewitnesses claiming that on entering these offices they are shocked to see at least 80% of the workers are Indians.

However, India has argued that while Singapore has done this to address its own domestic concerns, it had committed a separate provision under CECA, exempting India from such a rule. The matter has taken a political colour now….’

Since then there was no more threats of India suing Singapore. Maybe some agreements had been reached that satisfied India's demand for more free flow of Indian nationals or some relaxation on the part of Singapore's immigration rules. Whatever, if the Indian govt is not complaining, it means they are very happy with the arrangement. On the Singapore side, everything very quiet except that the unemployment of PMETs and young Singaporean graduates get worse by the days.

Now it is exploding and everyone is talking about it. The opposition parties are also raising this as a major issue in the coming GE. What is real or fake can only be judged by the numbers of Indian PMETs here versus the sad and miserable stories of Singaporean graduates losing their jobs or unable to get a decent job, not half baked part time jobs or as Grab drivers or Grab delivery boys and girls.

In the past there was this policy of allowing foreign graduates to work in Singapore if they came from recognised and reputtable universities. Today this is forgotten and with CECA, any rubbish universities, real or fake also can, and their dubious and funny graduates are now in top positions in Singapore's economy, bossing around and ridiculing our local graduates from the world's best universities overseas and our NUS and NTU.

It is time to reintroduce the practice of only recognising the degrees of good and reputable universities, not karang guni universities and back lane degree mills.How would this affect the unbelieveable loose conditions in the CECA if it is implemented?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28
Page 28 of 28

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions