Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees?

“Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees”-Josephine Teo.

I beg to differ. I would like to offer a different view regarding legislated retrenchment benefits.

Nobody wishes for retrenchment to happen; not the government, not employers, not employees or their families or even the unions and if and when retrenchment becomes necessary and they are, in fact, becoming more common, then benefits should not be left to the mercy or fancy or unilateral discretion of the employers only. There are simply too many unscrupulous employers out there.

The 3 main reasons cited by Josephine Teo for Singapore not having retirement benefits law are namely,

1) Legislated baseline would become the default and so if companies are able to pay more would be unlikely to do so.

2) Setting high baseline retrenchment benefits would strain the financial health of companies that are alearly struggling and potentially jeopardises their survival and the jobs of other employees.

3) Employers are less likely to offer long term or permanent contract and resort to offering short term employment.

My responses are as follow.

1) When companies have to resort to retrenchment instead of redeployment of staff or working shorter work week or pay cut etc, it is naivety of the highest order to believe that they can afford or are willing to pay more. I stress. To have one bird in hand is better than 2 birds in the bush.

2) Businesses have many operating costs to tackle and legislated retrenchment benefits is but just one of their many business costs. It is no different from rental, salaries, depreciation, taxes or staff training etc.

To demonise legislated retrenchment benefits is to mask government’s siding with businesses at workers’ expense in the face of either having weak trade unions or having weak ministers running the Ministry of Manpower or both or having complicit union leaders even.

3) Companies will have to decide on their employment strategies and over time, if certain companies mainly offer contract employment, then their names in the market must be “outstanding” and there are certain negative costs and consequences involved.

So, all in all, I would argue for a clear, transparent and easy to understand legislated retrenchment benefits for all affected full time employees and their companies.

This duty which the pap government has failed our Singaporean employees so glaringly for decades mustn’t be allowed to further continue or tolerated but put right with urgency especially in an era of employment insecurity and an educated workforce. Think.

 

Simon Lim

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

16 Responses to “Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees?”

  • Two Lampars on Shoulders Idiot:

    Simon, at times like this, when businesses are already so bad and need to retrench more workers, which idiot employers will support your notion of “legislated retrenchment benefits”?
    Even workers will tell you to go kite when they can’t even get employed in the first place where got ‘benefits’?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Police CLOSE DOWN:

    I’ll say it again. Employers should do everything themselves and not hire.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Pro Business slut:

    Prostitute of Fallacy Studies

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TUMASIK Patriot:

    In today’s context you are lucky to have a JOB or cling on to one or be self employed and await handouts from the System…

    Retrenchment benefits??? what’s that!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    CPF IS RETIREMENT BENEFIT law thoroughly raped to its death, period. Who still got his/her money back at 55?

    CPF is NOT our money anymore.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP gaming like LML:

    Haha, why then investors are “FLOCKING ” to Thailand.

    Cheap labor or THEIR UNIONS HAVING A minimum 6 months retrenchment pay out for closing shop or firing a worker ???

    Sinkues are so so STUPID !!!

    Indonesia unions are fighting, have been fighting for ” ENDING ” of all CONTRACT work by companies and minimum retrenchment benefits similar or BETTER than Thailand.

    Why, did all the O&G companies relocated to Bantam, if above is BAD ?

    PLUS ALL THE NIKE, REEBOK, ADIDAS, CONTRACTORS FLOODING INDON.

    CHEAP LABOR MA….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    Retrenchment benefits are only possible if $G citizens are hired. As long as FT’s (PR’s or other types of FT) are able to be hired the employer will not need to comply with any such benefits.

    It is useless to talk about job security or benefits when a main problem of FT stealing jobs is not solved first. Another main problem is unions being controlled by the government.

    There is no way local workers can ever hope to negotiate for their rights while these two Great Walls exist.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Flickshit:

    “Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees”-Josephine Teo >>

    If the retirement law does not guaranteed, then RETURN all our CPF money, after all, it our money not the Govt money. Silly idiots.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • this word legislated:

    //which idiot employers will support your notion of “legislated retrenchment benefits”?//

    aiyoh. it like saying which person will support gee-ass-tee increase (unless those bo noa ones or some part time actors put onto some wayang charade to say they support lor) ??

    of course, most employers (if not 100%) will support “legislated retrenchment benefits” if given a choice (that is why there is this word legislated) as no one would want to have his pockets ($$$) pinched ???

    likewise which idiot employees will not want to support “legislated retrenchment benefits” ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • NotMyProblem:

    “Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees”-Josephine Teo

    It’s like “no plan is a good plan”

    This Minister is the most lazy Minister.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • retrenched:

    Hi anyone here could help me with some info on retail fx broker in Sg.

    Can let me know which broker is best for retail fx , please.
    Thanks.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxi:

    But the LAW guarantees you be $ucked DRY of tour own RETIREMENT SAVINGS?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • ThaiKhun:

    NotMyProblem:
    October 8, 2020 at 10:43 am (Quote)
    “Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees”-Josephine Teo.NotMyProblem:
    October 8, 2020 at 10:43 am (Quote)
    “Retirement benefits law does not guarantee better outcome for employees”-Josephine Teo

    It’s like “no plan is a good plan”
    This Minister is the most lazy Minister.]

    She is not Only the most LAZY Minister.
    Farking CLUELESS too in managing the FW Domitories Covid19 pandemic! Even have the cheek to say none of the Migrant workers demanded an apology from her for Mismanaging their domitories during CB !
    She is ONLY Good for having Sex in small enclose space !!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Guessing:

    Have YOU try it? Then how doYOU know?

    You are just guessing!

    We pay you a million to guess?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • S$99m pa ownself paid wage:

    we just shake our heads when sheep reelected the joe tiu.

    she is such a fake.

    yet sheep reelected her.

    we are just amazed we have such sheep in our midst.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Two Lampars On Shoulders:

    Here they only “legislate” when govt. gets the better deal, shits for YOU! “Legislated” president, “legislated” POFMA, “legislated” CPF, what happens now?

    Only thing that cannot legislate are idiot like Simon and you?

    this word legislated:
    //which idiot employers will support your notion of “legislated retrenchment benefits”?//

    aiyoh. it like saying which person will support gee-ass-tee increase (unless those bo noa ones or some part time actors put onto some wayang charade to say they support lor) ??

    of course, most employers (if not 100%) will support “legislated retrenchment benefits” if given a choice (that is why there is this word legislated) as no one would want to have his pockets ($$$) pinched ???

    likewise which idiot employees will not want to support “legislated retrenchment benefits” ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1