tat farker tok so loud about fighting anywhere but balls shrink smaller than ballpoint pen heads when tok about getting terrex back.
cant save own balls, expect him to save other's balls?
-
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.
Chitchat Surbana - why Chan Chun Sing kept quiet over the sackings
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
tat farker tok so loud about fighting anywhere but balls shrink smaller than ballpoint pen heads when tok about getting terrex back.
cant save own balls, expect him to save other's balls?
Surbana Jurong: Sackings ‘could have been better managed'
Surbana Jurong: Sackings ‘could have been better managed’
Wong Heang Fine, Group chief executive officer (CEO) of Surbana Jurong.PHOTO : BT
Surbana Jurong working with unions to help 54 affected workers find jobs
http://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/surbana-jurong-sackings-could-have-been-better-managed
Surbana’s labelling of its terminated staff as ‘poor performers’ is unacceptable: Lim Swee Say
Hannah Teoh Yahoo News Singapore February 7, 2017
Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say has criticised Surbana Jurong for labelling the workers that the Temasek-Holdings owned consultancy has terminated as “poor performers”, saying that it was unacceptable.
The way that Surbana terminated the 54 workers fell short of established human resource practices, Lim said on Tuesday (7 February).
Speaking in Parliament about the termination that took place last month, Lim said, “This is the first time that the employer has conducted such a major termination exercise and announced publicly that these workers are labelled poor performers. As a Manpower Minister, it is something that I do not find acceptable.”
He was responding to questions from various members of Parliament about updates of the Ministry of Manpower’s investigations into the incident.
Surbana Jurong group chief executive Wong Heang Fine reportedly explained the terminations to staff by saying in an e-mail that the company could not allow poor performers to continue to affect the 99 per cent who were performing.
The termination was criticised by union leaders who said that the company did not follow due processes before terminating the workers.
Of the 54 terminated workers, 14 are members of the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees’ Union (BATU).
BATU president Nasordin Mohd Hashim said in a Facebook post, “Eight of our members were re-employed staff who were offered re-employment or had their contract renewed. Why did the company offer them re-employment or renew their contract if their performance was not satisfactory to begin with?”
Lim told the House that his ministry expects companies to conduct their HR practices in a responsible and progressive manner.
“In this particular case, we are certainly concerned that a major employer could commit such a HR practice gaffe,” Lim said.
The management of Surbana and unions have since reached an agreement on an ex-grata payment for the affected employees, said Lim, adding that this was a “fair outcome” for the affected employees.
Lim added, “The company has acknowledged that the process could have been better managed…This episode serves as a good reminder to employers that termination exercises should be conducted in a responsible and sensitive manner.”
Under the Employment Act, employers who terminate employees on grounds of poor performance must substantiate these claims based on documented incidents of poor performance. Employees who feel they have been unfairly dismissed may file an appeal with MOM.
Lim concluded, “I hope we do not come across another case like this…At the end of the day, it does not mean that the (affected) person cannot do well in other places. The work environment, HR practices are also contributing factors.”
becos he knows that one day he will work for StomachSick n the female boss will snip his teenie weenie OFF
From my experience people who are betrayed by "friends" will become the most bitter of enemies.
Just look at a divorces
Each party has plenty of baggage from a break up because they have each given up something to keep the relationship going. The relationship might be one sided but civil servants have developed an entitlement attitude & I bet there is some bitterness.
Reminder that firms are answerable to MOM, new rules for mass firings are positive effects
Surbana Jurong is an award-winning company on many fronts.
Four months ago, the Temasek Holdings-owned infrastructure consultancy snagged a Platinum Award in modelling given out by the Building and Construction Authority.
In a statement, a director in the company attributed the win to the "dedication, strong collaboration and hard work" of staff.
Three months before that, the home-grown company was lauded by the Institution of Engineers for building five of Singapore's top 50 engineering feats such as Jurong Island and Punggol Waterway flats.
Its board is a list of who's who in the corporate sector, and its top management includes a former top civil servant who previously headed two statutory boards.
So, one wonders what led to such an accomplished company being openly rapped this week in Parliament by Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say, who said that it was unacceptable for Surbana to publicly label the 54 employees it recently axed as "poor performers".
This is the short version of, what I call, the Surbana sackings saga.
The Straits Times first reported on the sackings last month, about two weeks before Chinese New Year. The company would not say then how many workers had been axed. It stressed that no one was retrenched but "a small number of poor performers were communicated with and released".
For the rest of the employers in Singapore who watch this saga from the sidelines, the bottom line is clear. Employers have the power to hire and fire, and no employer owes any worker a living. But, it does not hurt for them to treat workers with sensitivity, compassion and dignity, especially when the workers have to be let go.
A few days later, several local newspapers reported that Surbana chief executive Wong Heang Fine told his staff in a strongly worded e-mail that the company could not allow a small proportion of poor performers to drag down the rest of the organisation. The number of affected workers - 54 - was revealed for the first time.
They represented 0.41 per cent of Surbana's 13,000-strong global workforce and 0.79 per cent of its roughly 3,000 employees here. And 18 were union members.
A day later, the two unions that represent Surbana workers hit back through Facebook.
One union leader challenged the company's assertion that the axed workers were poor performers, saying that eight were either re-employed after they reached retirement age or had their contracts renewed.
Another union leader added: "To sack them just before (the Chinese New Year) is heartless to the extreme."
The sackings got an airing in Parliament this week. Four MPs spoke about the matter.
How did the sacking of these workers become such big news?
There are a number of reasons but here are four.
One, such mass sackings in full public view are rare. Companies that sack poor performers tend to do so in small numbers to stay below the radar.
Two, Surbana is a Temasek Holdings-owned company. The Temasek brand carries cachet and an expectation that the company does things right.
If a Temasek-linked company can treat workers badly and get away with it, it sets a bad example for other employers.
Three, the sackings happened under the unions' watch. It raises a key question: If unions cannot protect their members, what chance do other non-unionised workers have? After all, the majority of workers in Singapore are not union members.
Four, the dismissals came at a time when the economy is slowing and more workers are losing their jobs. The prospect of the sacked workers finding new jobs is dim. The timing also compounds workers' fear that Surbana might have axed them to avoid paying retrenchment benefits.
The drama aside, there is a silver lining to the saga. It is what those in the education circle will call "a teaching moment". There are, at least, three lessons for employers.
One, no one can escape Ministry of Manpower (MOM) scrutiny.
The MOM has made it clear that a big name like Surbana can be called to account for its actions and even chided in public.
Said Mr Lim: "Whether GLC (government-linked company), MNC (multinational company), large local enterprises or, for that matter, public service… we do expect all of them to conduct HR (human resources) practices in a responsible and progressive manner."
Two, tripartite guidelines are now being drafted for mass terminations, in addition to the existing guidelines that cover mass retrenchments. This will allay workers' fears of employers who disguise retrenchments as sackings to avoid paying workers retrenchment benefits. It will also deter employers from even thinking about such a move.
Three, employers should think carefully before they slap the "poor performer" label on their staff.
"If the performance of employees is not up to mark, there could be contributing factors on the part of employers as well," Mr Lim noted.
The public airing of the sackings must have caused red faces among the head honchos in Surbana. To the company's credit, it conceded subsequently that the dismissal of the workers could have been managed better.
While the Surbana sackings may not be a case of a company trying to avoid paying retrenchment benefits by sacking workers, the unions and Surbana have nonetheless reached a settlement for the workers which the MOM described as fair. That indicates the interests of the workers were protected, even though the details of the deal were not disclosed.
This is an important outcome because whether it was a sacking or a retrenchment, the effect is the same for the workers - they lost their jobs.
And, for the rest of the employers in Singapore who watch this saga from the sidelines, the bottom line is clear. Employers have the power to hire and fire, and no employer owes any worker a living. But, it does not hurt for them to treat workers with sensitivity, compassion and dignity, especially when the workers have to be let go.
Surbana Jurong is an award-winning company on many fronts.
Four months ago, the Temasek Holdings-owned infrastructure consultancy snagged a Platinum Award in modelling given out by the Building and Construction Authority.
In a statement, a director in the company attributed the win to the "dedication, strong collaboration and hard work" of staff.
Three months before that, the home-grown company was lauded by the Institution of Engineers for building five of Singapore's top 50 engineering feats such as Jurong Island and Punggol Waterway flats.
Its board is a list of who's who in the corporate sector, and its top management includes a former top civil servant who previously headed two statutory boards.
So, one wonders what led to such an accomplished company being openly rapped this week in Parliament by Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say, who said that it was unacceptable for Surbana to publicly label the 54 employees it recently axed as "poor performers".
This is the short version of, what I call, the Surbana sackings saga.
The Straits Times first reported on the sackings last month, about two weeks before Chinese New Year. The company would not say then how many workers had been axed. It stressed that no one was retrenched but "a small number of poor performers were communicated with and released".
For the rest of the employers in Singapore who watch this saga from the sidelines, the bottom line is clear. Employers have the power to hire and fire, and no employer owes any worker a living. But, it does not hurt for them to treat workers with sensitivity, compassion and dignity, especially when the workers have to be let go.
A few days later, several local newspapers reported that Surbana chief executive Wong Heang Fine told his staff in a strongly worded e-mail that the company could not allow a small proportion of poor performers to drag down the rest of the organisation. The number of affected workers - 54 - was revealed for the first time.
They represented 0.41 per cent of Surbana's 13,000-strong global workforce and 0.79 per cent of its roughly 3,000 employees here. And 18 were union members.
A day later, the two unions that represent Surbana workers hit back through Facebook.
One union leader challenged the company's assertion that the axed workers were poor performers, saying that eight were either re-employed after they reached retirement age or had their contracts renewed.
Another union leader added: "To sack them just before (the Chinese New Year) is heartless to the extreme."
The sackings got an airing in Parliament this week. Four MPs spoke about the matter.
How did the sacking of these workers become such big news?
There are a number of reasons but here are four.
One, such mass sackings in full public view are rare. Companies that sack poor performers tend to do so in small numbers to stay below the radar.
Two, Surbana is a Temasek Holdings-owned company. The Temasek brand carries cachet and an expectation that the company does things right.
If a Temasek-linked company can treat workers badly and get away with it, it sets a bad example for other employers.
Three, the sackings happened under the unions' watch. It raises a key question: If unions cannot protect their members, what chance do other non-unionised workers have? After all, the majority of workers in Singapore are not union members.
Four, the dismissals came at a time when the economy is slowing and more workers are losing their jobs. The prospect of the sacked workers finding new jobs is dim. The timing also compounds workers' fear that Surbana might have axed them to avoid paying retrenchment benefits.
The drama aside, there is a silver lining to the saga. It is what those in the education circle will call "a teaching moment". There are, at least, three lessons for employers.
One, no one can escape Ministry of Manpower (MOM) scrutiny.
The MOM has made it clear that a big name like Surbana can be called to account for its actions and even chided in public.
Said Mr Lim: "Whether GLC (government-linked company), MNC (multinational company), large local enterprises or, for that matter, public service… we do expect all of them to conduct HR (human resources) practices in a responsible and progressive manner."
Two, tripartite guidelines are now being drafted for mass terminations, in addition to the existing guidelines that cover mass retrenchments. This will allay workers' fears of employers who disguise retrenchments as sackings to avoid paying workers retrenchment benefits. It will also deter employers from even thinking about such a move.
Three, employers should think carefully before they slap the "poor performer" label on their staff.
"If the performance of employees is not up to mark, there could be contributing factors on the part of employers as well," Mr Lim noted.
The public airing of the sackings must have caused red faces among the head honchos in Surbana. To the company's credit, it conceded subsequently that the dismissal of the workers could have been managed better.
While the Surbana sackings may not be a case of a company trying to avoid paying retrenchment benefits by sacking workers, the unions and Surbana have nonetheless reached a settlement for the workers which the MOM described as fair. That indicates the interests of the workers were protected, even though the details of the deal were not disclosed.
This is an important outcome because whether it was a sacking or a retrenchment, the effect is the same for the workers - they lost their jobs.
And, for the rest of the employers in Singapore who watch this saga from the sidelines, the bottom line is clear. Employers have the power to hire and fire, and no employer owes any worker a living. But, it does not hurt for them to treat workers with sensitivity, compassion and dignity, especially when the workers have to be let go.
Hi, have not been in here for quite a looonnngggg while. While reading that clown Lim Sway Sway comment on the entire issue is like a pussy cat with set of false rubber teeth biting on a leg...or a mental picture of that dance where the person wear a costume that has two sides ,one black one white or one side a woMAN & the other side a MAN & the dance intimately..
That is what that Lim Sway Sway is doing....one person two sides of the costumes...one side Them Are Sick..the other side...C.U.N.T....dancining intimately....& growl....with a bite...false teeth made of rubber..."meow"!
The only idiots we all can think of...are the famous Sinkingporeans....the love such WAYANGS.
Similar threads
