- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Ending pay cuts at 60: Govt-linked firms should take lead
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I SUPPORT labour chief Lim Swee Say's call to end the 'pay cut at 60' practice ('Labour chief: Let's end practice of pay cut at 60', last Friday). While the law allows for, but does not mandate, a cut, it appears from the report that most companies have seized the opportunity to cut the maximum 10 per cent allowed under the law.
It is a shame that an employee, in the last years of his employ, instead of being respected for his experience and contributions to the organisation, faces a wage cut for doing the same job. As Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of the Council for Third Age that promotes active ageing, aptly put it: 'If the older worker is doing the same work (at 60), there is no justification to cut his pay.'
As it stands, companies already have the benefit of reduced Central Provident Fund contributions as the worker ages. Perhaps it is time for a review, and to dismantle or tweak such practices that negatively affect a worker's income merely because of age.
We should help people save for retirement, not make it harder for them.
Perhaps the Government, as well as government-linked companies, can heed Mr Lim's call and take the lead for private companies to follow. After all, I am sure these companies do not need these wage reductions to boost their bottom lines.
Perinpanayagam James
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I SUPPORT labour chief Lim Swee Say's call to end the 'pay cut at 60' practice ('Labour chief: Let's end practice of pay cut at 60', last Friday). While the law allows for, but does not mandate, a cut, it appears from the report that most companies have seized the opportunity to cut the maximum 10 per cent allowed under the law.
It is a shame that an employee, in the last years of his employ, instead of being respected for his experience and contributions to the organisation, faces a wage cut for doing the same job. As Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of the Council for Third Age that promotes active ageing, aptly put it: 'If the older worker is doing the same work (at 60), there is no justification to cut his pay.'
As it stands, companies already have the benefit of reduced Central Provident Fund contributions as the worker ages. Perhaps it is time for a review, and to dismantle or tweak such practices that negatively affect a worker's income merely because of age.
We should help people save for retirement, not make it harder for them.
Perhaps the Government, as well as government-linked companies, can heed Mr Lim's call and take the lead for private companies to follow. After all, I am sure these companies do not need these wage reductions to boost their bottom lines.
Perinpanayagam James
