- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/22/indian-pr-questions-sg-who-lost-her-job-to-ft/
[h=2]Indian PR questions SG who lost her job to FT[/h]
August 22nd, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Indian PR probed Singaporean who lost her job to FT: “Was there
something she is not telling us?”
I
stumbled upon this page by chance while browsing something else. I think there
is something missing in this article. So let me try to weigh in here. A brief
intro – I am an Indian citizen holding a PR and working in SG since the last 10
years.
I used to work as a contract employee for an MNC through an outsourcing
vendor company similar to Encora. It was a Malaysian owned company and
functioned the same way as Encora, i.e its a bodyshopper.
All such companies (and there are many in Singapore, both local and foreign
owned) supplies temporary workers to the client for a fixed duration contract
and take a cut off the price for their expenses and profit margin and pay the
rest to the contractor. The client, for various reasons, would not like to open
that position on its payroll and hence decides to go through a vendor.
Once the client has engaged a vendor to provide a temporary worker for a
fixed duration (key words being temporary and fixed duration), the client has no
further responsibility towards the contractor other than providing a safe
working environment and paying the vendor on time so that the contractor
receives her salary on time.
This will be clearly mentioned in the contracts signed between the vendor,
the client and the individual.
Any other benefits the contractor receives, like medical insurance, leave etc
is dependent on the terms of the contract between the vendor and the individual
and depends on the profit margin and the terms of the agreement between the
client and the vendor which would be confidential.
Being a Singaporean, Veron is entitled to 16 weeks maternity pay, something
which my female colleagues who were foreigners never had the luxury of getting.
I find it it hard to believe that the vendor did not pay her the maternity
pay.
This is governed by MOM rules and no company engaged in legal employment
would go and break the rule with the risk of committing an offence and being
penalized with even imprisonment.
Was there something she is not telling us? Like was she on a sabbatical or
did she resign and rejoin less than 90 days before going for delivery?
Veron mentioned that she was with AT&T as a contractor for 13 years. Was
it at one stretch? Why didn’t her managers at AT&T choose to make her
permanent? Something doesn’t seem right there. Regardless, AT&T as a company
do not owe her any settlement as she was only a temporary worker as far as the
company is concerned.
I do find it strange that after working there for 13 years she had no one to
speak out for her if, as she says, it was a termination.
Finally on the last point, she said that she was replaced by her maternity
cover. But is there any evidence for that?
It could in fact be a reorganization and Veron’s position might have been
made redundant.
The replacement could have been hired for another position with the client.
Does Veron have proof that that is not the case?
Given these holes in the story, I find it hard to take this at face value.
Especially when she uses the foreigner card to play on the local vs foreigner
theme to gain sympathy.
And while I applaud you for taking the trouble to help the lady I do think it
would only be fair that you share the vendor’s side of the story also.
Just hearing one side of the story is not enough to make a fair
judgement.
Transitioning Editor’s note:
Veron was terminated by Encora who is the agent for AT & T after
returning from her maternity leave without any compensation. Her replacement is
a Indian foreigner who covers her duties while she went on maternity.
The article is retrieved from a comment posted here. Please vote
wisely!
* Transitioning.org is a support site for
the unemployed run by Gilbert Goh.
[h=2]Indian PR questions SG who lost her job to FT[/h]
August 22nd, 2015 |
Author: Contributions
Indian PR probed Singaporean who lost her job to FT: “Was there
something she is not telling us?”
stumbled upon this page by chance while browsing something else. I think there
is something missing in this article. So let me try to weigh in here. A brief
intro – I am an Indian citizen holding a PR and working in SG since the last 10
years.
I used to work as a contract employee for an MNC through an outsourcing
vendor company similar to Encora. It was a Malaysian owned company and
functioned the same way as Encora, i.e its a bodyshopper.
All such companies (and there are many in Singapore, both local and foreign
owned) supplies temporary workers to the client for a fixed duration contract
and take a cut off the price for their expenses and profit margin and pay the
rest to the contractor. The client, for various reasons, would not like to open
that position on its payroll and hence decides to go through a vendor.
Once the client has engaged a vendor to provide a temporary worker for a
fixed duration (key words being temporary and fixed duration), the client has no
further responsibility towards the contractor other than providing a safe
working environment and paying the vendor on time so that the contractor
receives her salary on time.
This will be clearly mentioned in the contracts signed between the vendor,
the client and the individual.
Any other benefits the contractor receives, like medical insurance, leave etc
is dependent on the terms of the contract between the vendor and the individual
and depends on the profit margin and the terms of the agreement between the
client and the vendor which would be confidential.
Being a Singaporean, Veron is entitled to 16 weeks maternity pay, something
which my female colleagues who were foreigners never had the luxury of getting.
I find it it hard to believe that the vendor did not pay her the maternity
pay.
This is governed by MOM rules and no company engaged in legal employment
would go and break the rule with the risk of committing an offence and being
penalized with even imprisonment.
Was there something she is not telling us? Like was she on a sabbatical or
did she resign and rejoin less than 90 days before going for delivery?
Veron mentioned that she was with AT&T as a contractor for 13 years. Was
it at one stretch? Why didn’t her managers at AT&T choose to make her
permanent? Something doesn’t seem right there. Regardless, AT&T as a company
do not owe her any settlement as she was only a temporary worker as far as the
company is concerned.
I do find it strange that after working there for 13 years she had no one to
speak out for her if, as she says, it was a termination.
Finally on the last point, she said that she was replaced by her maternity
cover. But is there any evidence for that?
It could in fact be a reorganization and Veron’s position might have been
made redundant.
The replacement could have been hired for another position with the client.
Does Veron have proof that that is not the case?
Given these holes in the story, I find it hard to take this at face value.
Especially when she uses the foreigner card to play on the local vs foreigner
theme to gain sympathy.
And while I applaud you for taking the trouble to help the lady I do think it
would only be fair that you share the vendor’s side of the story also.
Just hearing one side of the story is not enough to make a fair
judgement.
Transitioning Editor’s note:
Veron was terminated by Encora who is the agent for AT & T after
returning from her maternity leave without any compensation. Her replacement is
a Indian foreigner who covers her duties while she went on maternity.
The article is retrieved from a comment posted here. Please vote
wisely!
* Transitioning.org is a support site for
the unemployed run by Gilbert Goh.
