Comments on: Time to get tough on job discrimination (Part One)

By: Charles Lee

Charles Lee — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:31:14 +0000

Talk is cheap…
The Government should put their money where their mouth is – hire older workers in the government sector AND all their “croony” related bodies which obviously they have control over. Action speaks louder than words… ALL HR personel over 45 should be retrenched for their archaic stupidity. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Ever tried applying to the government sector? I have been trying.
It is the same as applying to the private sector – AGE DISCRIMINATORY !

By: Dr.Huang

Dr.Huang — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:18:11 +0000

Hi Chung,
I just posted something about the TAFEP at
http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com/2007/05/tafep-good-step-taken-against.html.

Perhaps the implications of the TAFEP has not sunk into the heads of the HR dept of these “public enterprises” and stat boards.

Unfortunately the TAFEP is merely a guideline only, but pressure would be put on the govt bodies to set the example.

By: YokeH Chung

YokeH Chung — Mon, 07 May 2007 03:12:51 +0000

Hi,
Chanced upon the above article 4 mths after its publication and 2 weeks after this issue
hit the headlines in the press?
What has been said so far about introducing legislation to tackle the obstacles cannot be
discounted…
I was quite amazed with some advertisements put up by some public enterprises after the so called quidelines appeared in the papers; like 2 to 3 years of experience is required AND immediately followed by “Fresh graduates are also welcome”!
On my part, I had attended a job fair myself and out of curosity asked a staff from a participating stat board whether there is any age limit for vacancies offered. Guess what,
the answer was “preferably below 35 as a lot of walking is required”!
What more to add?
Cheers,
Chung
board

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:22 +0000

You guys are right. We can only hope that TAFEP is not just another coffee-drinkng session for the committee. As Dr Huang said, I feel that ageism is more of a problem than the other forms of discrimination. It is no doubt slowly taking root here.

At the end of the day, some form of legislation is needed – coupled with education and persuasion. As LKY himself once said, changing mindsets takes generations (courtesy campaign, littering, spitting, etc..)

But I don’t think Singapore can afford to wait for people (employers) to decide to not discriminate, unlike courtesy or littering or spitting.

By: Dr.Huang

Dr.Huang — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:33:08 +0000

Hi
there is typos,
2nd line application should read “applicant” and
3rd line “name” should read “age”
Even Europe is not so crazy as to disallow the name on the application form! ha ha

Dr.Huang

By: Dr.Huang

Dr.Huang — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:30:43 +0000

Hi
I just read somewhere that in the UK/Ireland that they are so serious about discrimination eg ageism that ( I cannot verify) on application forms, it is not advised for the application to indicate his/her age and the appropriate place to find out the name of the applicants is at the interview.
I don’t think we need to go to this extent BUT, we should be serious about our attempts to weed out all forms of job discriminations!
I just found out another acquiantance has just lost his job. He is in late-40′s and I am certain he will face ageism discrimination when he applies for the next job!
How can the govt take such a laid-back attitude to this issue! We can’t just say that the market decide who they want to employ and then wash it’s hands off this problem.
Dr.Huang

By: The_Latest_H

The_Latest_H — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:37:34 +0000

I think we do need fair employment practices. Laws should also be passed.

But as the article said, we also need people to help educate people about it, and to spread the message about the need to do so. Because even with laws, as long as the general public, employers and employees remain in the dark, for whatever reasons, it remains nothing but words.

Then, we need to explain why the government has refused or ignored the need to publish figures about the patterns of job discrimination. At least, in the West, and in places like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, even if the government, by law, doesn’t need to publish figures, the newspapers always does, the new websites always does. So you will always get a rough idea.

Here, we don’t even have any figures to speak with.

By: ney reed

ney reed — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:34:09 +0000

what is required at the minimal is clear, strong regulations to prevent job descrimination. this is how every matured country deals with this problem all around the world. whenever any job applicant applying for a job/worker within an employment feels descriminated due to ethnicity, language, age, religion, gender or any other differences is able to seek recourse through a fair and transparent process that allows for the employee to bring forth his/her claims of descrimination and the employer to explain his/her decisions/attitudes/treatment/actions of the job applicant/employee.

you need three kinds of laws for this. firstly sexual harrassment laws which apply generally in all circumstances. secondly racial harrassment laws which also apply generally in all circumstances. thirdly work place anti-descrimination laws. most of the descrimination in any typical workplace all over the world, will be mainly due to either gender or racial descrimination. that is why those former two additional laws are required.

beyond just legislating the laws, it must be made simple, convenient, affordable and equitable for job applicants and employees to utilize this process. finally the enforcers must have the ability to apply the law evenly regardless of whether the defendent is an government agency or multi-national corporation.