-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Canada Maternity Leave See Beh SOLID!
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
There are two values in the western world that we asians can emulate.
One is: Family security
Second is: Financial security
Now it comes as ironic on why westerners seems to be better on this than asians. I mean, for many many years, the stereotype have been that, asians are better than this because of collective asian values; Angmohs in contrast, have put more emphasis on individualism and self-reliance.
But again, words are just words, and while we, especially in Singapore, keep on parroting about these, our actions have not. The laws we have are not; our attitude that we now have are not.
We say that women do not have disadvantages in the workplace, and at home, and we know they do not. We say that we take care of old people, but we know we do not. We say that our family is the basis of society, but we know that sometimes, we put money over family.
Contrast that with the angmohs who have laws over this, to ensure that the right is there, and to seek the right balance between career, family and friend. That they know that if someone's too impassioned about work, it becomes unhealthy. And they know that if an employee cannot take care of a family problem at home, that employee cannot be productive at work.
And that, these often does affect vice versa and mix together. And because of that, the attitude of society is different, and the laws are different. And if we want equal treatment, and to further press into the issue of family values into real reality, then we must not only pass laws to help the mothers, the elderly, the sick and the young, then we have to change our bad attitudes towards them.
Only then can we progress, and not get stuck in a time warp as Mr. Yeh.
One is: Family security
Second is: Financial security
Now it comes as ironic on why westerners seems to be better on this than asians. I mean, for many many years, the stereotype have been that, asians are better than this because of collective asian values; Angmohs in contrast, have put more emphasis on individualism and self-reliance.
But again, words are just words, and while we, especially in Singapore, keep on parroting about these, our actions have not. The laws we have are not; our attitude that we now have are not.
We say that women do not have disadvantages in the workplace, and at home, and we know they do not. We say that we take care of old people, but we know we do not. We say that our family is the basis of society, but we know that sometimes, we put money over family.
Contrast that with the angmohs who have laws over this, to ensure that the right is there, and to seek the right balance between career, family and friend. That they know that if someone's too impassioned about work, it becomes unhealthy. And they know that if an employee cannot take care of a family problem at home, that employee cannot be productive at work.
And that, these often does affect vice versa and mix together. And because of that, the attitude of society is different, and the laws are different. And if we want equal treatment, and to further press into the issue of family values into real reality, then we must not only pass laws to help the mothers, the elderly, the sick and the young, then we have to change our bad attitudes towards them.
Only then can we progress, and not get stuck in a time warp as Mr. Yeh.
That's ridiculous. An employer pays an employee for their TIME and their SKILLs. That's all I expect of any of my employees. 40 hours a week of their time is all I ask for.
If a female employee decides that having babies takes priority over work, then the most appropriate person to provide for them during this period should be the man who made her pregnant.
If he can't live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood, he should use a condom or go for a vasectomy.
That's ridiculous. An employer pays an employee for their TIME and their SKILLs. That's all I expect of any of my employees. 40 hours a week of their time is all I ask for.
If a female employee decides that having babies takes priority over work, then the most appropriate person to provide for them during this period should be the man who made her pregnant.
If he can't live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood, he should use a condom or go for a vasectomy.
I can picture your hiring advert ....
Exp. web administrator
8hr 5day week.
Web architecture, Javascript, XML.
Strong knowledge in porn and English grammar
Global whoring exp is a plus
During spousal intercourse, MUST wear
condom or cum on wife's belly.
8hr 5day week.
Web architecture, Javascript, XML.
Strong knowledge in porn and English grammar
Global whoring exp is a plus
During spousal intercourse, MUST wear
condom or cum on wife's belly.
Z
Zombie
Guest
That's ridiculous. An employer pays an employee for their TIME and their SKILLs. That's all I expect of any of my employees. 40 hours a week of their time is all I ask for.
If a female employee decides that having babies takes priority over work, then the most appropriate person to provide for them during this period should be the man who made her pregnant.
If he can't live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood, he should use a condom or go for a vasectomy.
Well, times have changed since the 19th century. Employers now have a social responsibility to their employees and have to treat them properly and equally. And to ensure that their attention, and motivation are maintained in the workplace, then the employees must have some time to tend to their troubles in their family or of those friends who are in need.
You can't expect to call back a father whose daughter is in the middle of a life-threatening situation in hospital- back to work asap, just because you want to. Obviously I assume that you're unmarried, and have no kids and a life partner, so you wouldn't care. But if someone who's a friend and have such a situation, and have such a boss, would you ask him to ignore the wife and the daughter, and just go back to work- without a conscience?
True, but we have more kids, and our future will be more secured. If we continue to be insular, we will end up like Japan right now, in the future.
And besides if Singapore becomes inhospitable for young families, and that they move overseas and have kids there, Singapore loses out on real talent, from ordinary people.
Yes we do have to pay more taxes, but these taxes are for the future. The costs that we pay now, will be returned many times over when its our time to retire. Think about the long term benefits, rather than just the short term.
Its about being generous now, so that we know what's the future, than to think about our own interests and our wallets. After all, we don't want our kids to be thinking, "Man, what were our parents thinking?"
Employers have families, needs and emotions too. Where is the "equality" for the employer? When they neglect their businesses, they go bankrupt!
Many people have this notion is that the "employer" is some large, faceless multibillion dollar corporation. In this day and age, that's simply not the case anymore.
The employer can be a carpenter who employs 2 assistants or shopkeeper with one employee or a cafe proprietor who hires one waitress.
The turnover for such businesses could be less than $100,000 a year and there could often be periods where the employees make more money than the boss.
"Equality" should apply to ALL and not just employees.
Of course, small businesses have bigger problems. That's why legislation is, and should be crafted out to help employees who are working for SMEs that has less than 40 employees and less than 5 respectively.
Its not like we should be discriminating against SMEs. After all, the more flexible rules are for bigger companies. For SMEs, the rules should be tweaked. A small florist shop, like many others, have a different perspective of business, and employee benefits than say a Subway franchise in a big sub-urbia area.
People who advocate for longer maternity leave should try to work in small organisations to realise how the current maternity leave is already putting a strain on small businesses.
With the higher cost of operations(rent, utilities, staff cost etc), the disruption to work and the requirement to hire a temporary replacement will not enhance the business climate for SMEs. Unlike the bigger local co. and MNCs as well as the public sector which have the resources and consider these as insignificant issues, SMEs will definitely struggle to cope with the new ruling.
Already some clear intentions have been made for preference of male staff to avoid the disruption to work. I guess the likelihood is that more women will be blocked out of employment opportunities in SMEs.
With the higher cost of operations(rent, utilities, staff cost etc), the disruption to work and the requirement to hire a temporary replacement will not enhance the business climate for SMEs. Unlike the bigger local co. and MNCs as well as the public sector which have the resources and consider these as insignificant issues, SMEs will definitely struggle to cope with the new ruling.
Already some clear intentions have been made for preference of male staff to avoid the disruption to work. I guess the likelihood is that more women will be blocked out of employment opportunities in SMEs.
Then you should submit such fair proposal to the sinkie govt to unsinkified themselves.
I'm afraid that the government is so beholden to big business that they will not care for labour proposals that will disturb the profits of their business partners.
And besides the PAP is more interested in the short term interests of themselves than the long term future of the country- and its people. Even with the economy, where a long term vision is urgently required in every country, the PAP has been contented to pursue ah hoc- as Dr. Neo had put it- policies, as opposed to long term ones that would help stabilize the future.
That's ridiculous. An employer pays an employee for their TIME and their SKILLs. That's all I expect of any of my employees. 40 hours a week of their time is all I ask for.
If a female employee decides that having babies takes priority over work, then the most appropriate person to provide for them during this period should be the man who made her pregnant.
If he can't live up to the responsibilities of fatherhood, he should use a condom or go for a vasectomy.
So only time and skills? So I guess an employee quitting during a critical time is okay as long as he has fulfilled his time for your money. No hard feelings either.
Plenty of employees simply walk off the job when they are most needed and there is nothing the employer can do about it so what's your point?
i agree with some of your arguments, but there are also some points of contention.
Let's look at the economic aspect first. As a business owner, i should be able to do my projection, and eventually pass the cost of running an extra headcount to the consumer. That unfortuantely is the way of doing business.
Also, i believe some of these expenses are either subsidised by the govt or are tax deductible. It is up to the company to manage that.
On the social aspect, it helps to pro create. Which means, there may be less likelihood to have to depend on foreign talents, and hence create employment for the people in the course of its run.
On the humanly aspect, some day, your wife will be at the receiving end of the benefit. So in cases like these, i rather keep my mouth shut.
On the profit and loss aspect, yes, employer takes all the risk of the business, the cost the manpower..etc..etc... but you have to bear in mind, the employer also takes all the upside of the investments. End of the day, it is the employer who will make the most money out of the business... assuming that it is wel ran, with proper planning. If this is not the case, then the employer deserve to fail in his business for whatever reasons.
my 2 cents worth
Z
Zombie
Guest
Plenty of employees simply walk off the job when they are most needed and there is nothing the employer can do about it so what's your point?
Many time their prenancies to avoid the office peak period.
Similar threads
