13th Death From H1N1:
Singapore’s Health Ministry reported on Tuesday the country’s 13th flu A/H1N1 related death case – a 80-year old Chinese man. (See MOH website)
Andrew Loh
The worst is over for the Singapore economy and the labour market has stabilised, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his National Day Rally speech. (Straits Times)
“Now the eye of the storm has passed…. Our labour situation has stabilised. Unemployment is not too high… Companies – some of them are hiring again, although still not in large numbers. Third quarter should be all right.” (PMO)
The Prime Minister’s reassurance brings little comfort to Nur (not her real name). What she faces is not unemployment through retrenchment but discrimination at the work place. Nur, 28, a single mother with a seven-year old daughter, works as an admin staff in a local company. In the last eight months, she was twice asked to leave her jobs as her employers did not want to extend her contract. Now Nur may again be asked to leave her third job this year.
You see, Nur is a kidney patient. She first discovered she had kidney problems in both her kidneys in 2005. Since then, she has had to visit the dialysis centre, run by the National Kidney Foundation, three times a week, each time spending four hours in dialysis treatment. She does this in the evenings, after work, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. She starts work at 8.30am and finishes at 6pm. In order to be on time for her treatment, she leaves work half an hour earlier, at 5.30pm. It was this which her employers found disagreeable. “They told me that since I cannot be around all the time they cannot extend my contract,” Nur explained, visibly upset. With a four hour treatment, she sometimes ends up reaching home close to midnight, and has little time to spend with her daughter.
She works on a contract basis and has had to endure her contracts not being renewed several times this year, even though her employers did not find her work performance lacking.
Such experiences with employers have led her to lie during job interviews when she looked for new jobs. “If I tell them the truth, they will not hire me,” she says. And even when she is successful in her job applications, she would continue to make up excuses in order to go for her treatment. “I would tell them I need to fetch my daughter from school,” she says. . “I have to work because I need to give [money] to my mother and I have to take care of my daughter,” she adds.
Once, after she had been on the job for two months, she decided to tell her manager the truth – and she ended up losing her job.
So why doesn’t she make arrangements with the centre to start her dialysis later so that she doesn’t have to leave her workplace half an hour early? The problem is that dialysis sessions do not always start on time, Nur explains. For example, during the recent H1N1 outbreak, sessions at the centre were delayed as precautionary measures had to be adhered to. This meant that Nur would end her dialysis much later, almost around midnight.
“It is very tiring, you know?” she says. She explains that already with the travelling to the centre and then onwards to her home, the entire process would take a total of close to six hours. She goes to bed past midnight but has to wake up at 6.30am to prepare to go to work again.
In the last job which she was asked to leave, her employer recruited another person to replace her. To Nur, this showed that it was not because the company needed to cut staff to save cost or that her performance was unsatisfactory, but that the company was discriminating against her because of her medical condition. In fact, several of her former employers had given this as their reasons for not renewing her contract.
In August, her supervisor informed her that the company may not renew her current contract. When she asked if the company was unhappy with her performance, her supervisor said no, but did not elaborate further.
In desperation, Nur went to see her Member of Parliament during his Meet-The-People session. He promised to get back to her but did not. When she visited him a second time, she was told by the MP’s assistants, “Sorry. MP cannot help you.” She was then advised to look for a job herself.
Nur has tried looking for a 9-to-5 job but she has not been successful so far. With the current economic situation, her search is made harder.
Several weeks ago, she approached the Community Development Council (CDC) for help but was told that they were not able to find her a job. The CDC advised her to wait and that she will be informed if it comes across any available jobs for her.
As she shows me the fremitus or thrill embedded in her left arm, above the elbow, a device which makes it easier to locate small veins in patients, Nur explains that she hardly misses work. This is because as a contract worker, she only gets paid when she shows up at the office. “This is why I’ll force myself to go to work even when I’m sick,” she says.
For now, she is at her wits’ end. Nur yearns for stability in her job so that she can better manage her life, and care for her daughter. All she seeks is a fair opportunity from employers and for understanding. “Why won’t they give me an opportunity?” she asks.
——
If you’re an employer or knows anyone who may be able to provide Nur a job, please do drop us an email at: theonlinecitizen@gmail.com .
——
An estimated 116,600 residents were jobless in June.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
48)Dumb and Dumber
Yes.Thanks for sharing ..to certain extend I agree.
But on Ms Nur ‘s situation.,it doesn’t do her good if she does not reveal her condition just to secure the job.A kidney patient can be as efficient and productive as any other applicant.
3 times a week ,she has to lie to her company that she need to fetch her daughter from school.When she lie ,I suppose the company or colleague do knot know her situation.If this happen 3 times a week ,then others may also want to have the same request.If they are turned down then they will claim favourism.
She works 8.30 to 6 pm and I suppose this is a five days week .
She could have choose a 5 1/2 days work and look for a 8 to 5 since she need to go at 5.30pm.,if she can only work office hours.
Nur’s leaving half an hr earlier three times per week is apparently an issue affecting work productivity. Her employer’s reluctance in renewing her work contract is tied presumably to her inability to work in terms of her work schedule, from 8.30 am to 6 pm, although this inability is due to her having to undergo dialysis treatment.
Nur’s employer is, it seems, looking at the situation strictly on economic terms, and even if they have compassion for her, it is of secondary importance.
Godwin seems to be embracing an attitude no different from that of Nur’s employer.
As an individual, I would prefer to work with someone like Jonah than with Godwin.
It is a good thing there are people who view others with compassion.
1. satisfying work obligation is not always measured by the hours one puts in. if there is a target to be hit, and Nur hits the target half an hour early, what’s wrong with leaving early? Or maybe she eats in and uses half an hour of her lunch time for work?
2. if Nur’s job is a direct supporting role, then no choice, she has to be there for the full working hours. there is not target/quota in which she can finish early. in this case, if the support role is not critical, then why not negotiate a lower value contract, since she IS working less hours than as stipulated in the contract. Maybe this can be her selling point instead? for a company which wishes to pay less for less work needed.
“no one is asking for charity, much less demand.”
Oh really?
You peope use words like “caring, “compassion”, “humane”, “empathy”, “corporate social responsibility”, “fair” and “equitable”, but in reality (in the context of Nur’s case) what you are really saying is that Nur’s employers should not have sacked her, that they should have kept her on her job, paying her the same salary when she leaves work 30 minutes early 3 times a week while her colleagues covered her, isn’t it?
Is that not demanding their charity?
What gives you the right to do that?
Wthat gives you the right to demand that her employers should hire Nur when they can use that same salary to hire someone who works all the hours she is paid for?
What gives you the right to demand that her colleagues covered her duties, 3 times a week, week after week?
I ask again because no one has given me an answer: what gives you the right to volunteer another person’s charity?
The posts here show precisely why the gahmen is against socialism and ‘welfarism’ and ‘the crutch mentality’ – almost everyone here is on Nur’s side not because they want to help her (honestly, who here has contacted TOC to offer Nur a job or money?), but because they want themselves and their children to receive help when they are themselves unable to fulfill their job obligations. Everyone is prepared to receive charity, but no one has volunteered their own charity. Everyone is prepared to become a ‘victim’ and receive charity, but no one aspires to being an employer who puts up the capital and creates jobs, no one sees themselves in the position of an employer.
This this is representative of the “community of Singaporeans”, then we deserve scorn.
(lobo76 I salute because at least he makes constructive suggestions – but that’s not really what TOC is looking for when they published this article now, is it?)
55) Godwin on August 26th, 2009 4.59 pm
you are talking crap.
is nur the only one that leave the job 30min early?
we have seen worst then her that even leave work an hour early and they are still in the company without being terminate. without worker there will be no bosses around. without worker bosses won’t even make a single profit.
boss doesn’t mean he must look totally into his own interest and company interest and treat his worker as a machine but rather treat them like a human and even in any problems there is always a solution. they too have family like the bosses too. they too have problems and difficulty in life just like the bosses.
can we say if bosses does a single mistake then shall he is required to close down the company?
Sure, we-singaporeans, if *you* are the boss then feel free to run *your* company *your* way, hire the employees *you* want, let them go off early whenever *you* want.
But Nur’s boss’ charity is his to give or withold – if he wants to let Nur go off early, he bears the consequences because he has the right to do so; if he chooses not to, who are the readers here to demand he does so?
At the end of the day the readers here do not want to give their own charity to Nur, but are oh so generous with other people’s charity.
This is the kind of pernicious attitude that passes for social conscience on TOC – people with nothing of value but their words to offer clamouring for people with things of value to give them up so they can feel good about themselves.
Your hatred of the PAP gahmen has blinded you to the fact that Nur’s employers may be people just like you or a little better off than yourselves, who took the risk and came up with the idea and capital of a business, made it work, and now provide a valuable service to customers who pay good money for it and expect good service in return, who provide jobs to people and pay them their wages and CPF, who pay more taxes than salaried employees – no, anyone better off than yourselves are capitalists and PAP cronies who exploit the common worker.
You produce nothing, but purpose to take from the rich what they have made and deserve, to give to the poor what they have not earned.
If your Robin-Hooding were carried out, if every employer were compelled to hire people who cannot fulfill their job obligations you will find service deteriorating, you will find people who can do a good job being denied work over someone who is less capable.
Go on and dream about the day the PAP gahmen is voted out and you can all divide up the property and assets of the rich, where every man will be given what he needs and gives his best in return.
Just remember that that dream turned into a nightmare for the communists, when they found out that if you rewarded people by their needs, needs will multiply, and if you took from men without rewarding them accordingly, they will soon give you nothing in return too.
Remember that even as you think yourself poor and deserving of the wealth of those richer than you, there are those poorer than you who think they deserve what is yours because they are poorer than you.
Remember that as you once proudly called for the wealth of those not belonging to you be given to the poor, one day someone else will call for your wealth to be taken from you.
Andrew Loh,
Why can’t she start work at 8 am and finish at 5.30 pm instead? So many jobs, so many employers. None of them are flexible?
What makes you so sure she’s not dismissed simply because she’s just not a good worker? She tells you and you believe? :-P
Godwin,
post #55 on August 26th, 2009 4.59 pm
////You peope use words like “caring, “compassion”, “humane”, “empathy”, “corporate social responsibility”, “fair” and “equitable”,…////
now you are conflating the issues? to say those words above amount to charity is a long shot.
////what you are really saying is that Nur’s employers should not have sacked her, that they should have kept her on her job, paying her the same salary when she leaves work 30 minutes early 3 times a week while her colleagues covered her, isn’t it?////
employers should be flexible to people with special needs.
Godwin,
in Nur’s case employers can work out a slightly different pay scale or work hours to accommodate her health condition when they know of her condition. to say,
////What gives you the right to demand that her employers should hire Nur when they can use that same salary to hire someone who works all the hours she is paid for?////
goes to show how demanding bosses are of workers. regardless of their health condition, family commitments, etc. might as well hire robots. :)
perhaps you should not view any request for a re-negotiation on wage & flexible working hours as charity, & demand workers put in the hours just to justisfy their salary.
“honestly, who here has contacted TOC to offer Nur a job or money”
When people can’t even fend for themselves, how can they offer any help? If TOC would like to help by asking Nur to give her bank account for kind strangers to donate.
“Everyone is prepared to become a ‘victim’ and receive charity, but no one aspires to being an employer who puts up the capital and creates jobs, no one sees themselves in the position of an employer.”
This is whose fault exactly. Since when is the government pro small business and anti corporate, except for a few half-hearted measures? The $40000000000 lost by Temasek could fund 400,000 small local companies with a seed capital of S$100,000 each or used for retraining. Not that every micro business needs that much capital. But instead the capital is now destroyed forever, with nothing in return, not even the goodwill of the Western governments to which the banks belong to which are measured in other aspects.
The problem with the direction that this discussion has taken is that one very crucial fact has not been acknowledged: Nur has a longterm disability.
Her disability makes it hard for those who believe that unbridled capitalist excess is the gospel truth, and to appreciate the accomodation that has to be made for such persons.
Nur is willing and able to work; what she needs is an employer who will accomodate her basic needs for medical care around her disability.
Are those employers that hard up for money that cannot continue to employ someone on an admin assistants’ income? Are we sure that the employer is not someone who’s from Singapore’s still growing Billion Dollar Club, recession or no recession?
http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=36403
Couldn’t the government be one such employer seeing that squeezing the last cent of profit out of everyone is so damn important to many employers?
Is it anti-discrimination legislation that is needed for the disabled?
I would think that what is needed is legislation that compels employers to make reasonable accomodation for the disabled to be able to attend to their medical- and self-care needs.
What about disability income for others who cannot even work, or cannot work full time?
now companies justify worker salary by the hours they work
like CHINA worker they sit all day long just doing a simple job and drag it for hours and take time la,,.relax2… then they get paid high by the hours
where by singaporeans workers rush their target finish that job for an hour and goes on to next target. so this worker get paid less.
this company should rather close down and go to china and employ as much china WORKER
the reason is very…..simple
this is the truth
companies in singapore is avoiding the need to employ singaporeans and by any mean they will slowly cut down on singaporeans with reason to blame them and next they bring in foreigns to cut cost so they can earn the extra. which company in singapore really doesgive welfare to their worker?? NONE
if you got a capability equal to a robots then you are on the hot list of employment.
company will be very happy if you can:
work a long hours and even stay till next day to go on
you have your lunch only 5min or less and goes back to work
you come two hours early before work
you can do 5worker job by just you alone
even you are sick you can performance even better in work
you don’t need medical leave or treatment
this are the worker who can promise the company then they can stand a change as a singaporeans to be employ but with just a minimum salary only.
To 63) we, singaporeans,
That’s why singaporeans are one of the least committed worker – according to the survey in 2008 – see link below.
http://www.meta.com.sg/archive_files/archive_20080507030702.pdf
When the employers have no “heart”, the employees have no loyalty.
52) agongkia,
“But on Ms Nur ’s situation, it doesn’t do her good if she does not reveal her condition just to secure the job.”
>> It definitely doesn’t. – but remember, desperate people, desperate measures. In my opinion, our country lacks the necessary law to help these people. From a security point of view, our country should view these issue seriously, do we really want to push this “desperate” people into a corner where they have no way out? Can you imagine what they will/can do?
“A kidney patient can be as efficient and productive as any other applicant.
3 times a week, she has to lie to her company that she need to fetch her daughter from school.When she lie, I suppose the company or colleague do knot know her situation.If this happen 3 times a week ,then others may also want to have the same request.If they are turned down then they will claim favourism.”
>> A lie that leads to another lie; then, another; sigh.
Food for thought – if men can leave early for their RT, Muslim go for their prayers on friday, Job credit Scheme to combat the economy, coupled with the ability for Singapore government to push through any policy they deemed fit; I seriously questioned the efficiency/effectiveness of the current government in their ability to help the less priviledged. This also reinforced my belief that brought up by my parents that there is no “free” lunch in singapore, and you better be dead than to be “sick”.
Oh, by the way, where is the “graciousness” in singaporeans to help the less priviledged fellow citizens – I guess the government programmes to push for “graciousness” must have failed miserably –
Cases in recent months including
1. “MP’s remark on Former national table tennis coach Liu Guodong.”
2. “Boy arrested for slamming chair at MP Office”,
3. “A singapore MP had been set on fire by a 70 year old man during a ceremony to hand out red packets to selected residents. Apparently, the man was unable to quality for the red packet and this incident is thought to be an act of vengeance.”
4. “MP’s comment on lessor mortal”
The list just went on.
FootNote:
Extract from Speech by SM Goh (first deputy Prime Minister then), at Katong Convent Diamond Jubilee Concert & Dinner, on 30 May 1990, 6:30 pm (http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19900530.pdf)
“…and establish new programmes towards a gracious and cultivated society. We want to do this, to bring Singapore to a new level of accomplishments beyond material wealth and economic achievements. We want to be known as a swan elegant, refined and sophisticated and not only as a tiger or dragon, aggressive, and full of drive and dare..”
“This also reinforced my belief that brought up by my parents that there is no “free” lunch in singapore”
Why should there be free lunches in Singapore?
When was the last time *you* gave a free lunch to someone?
Fact is you people here don’t want to *give* free lunches to people like Nur, you want to *take* free lunches from from others. From employers whom you think are exploiting workers. From the gahmen, even when that money is actually paid for with taxes by people who earned their money by providing services which others pay for.
Despite your talk of compassion, empathy, graciousness etc., what you really want is something for nothing. Your position is morally bankrupt, and will render this country financially bankrupt eventually.
“Your position is morally bankrupt, and will render this country financially bankrupt eventually.”
Are you talking about our dear PM and his wife now? Tsk tsk…..
Nice, Time for Change: more reasons on why Nur needs help, but not a single offer to help… Nice.
And your offer of help is to run her down in spite of her circumstances?
If that’s the case then I admit my level of contribution to help her definitely pales in comparison to yours….
16) Godwin on August 25th, 2009 9.21 pm
“By her own account Nur is a dishonest person and cannot fulfill her work obligation, and quite obiviously she does not possess any skill-set that makes her indispensable at the workplace …”
I am not running Nur down, but exposing the moral bankruptcy of those who demand that others “help” people like Nur when they do nothing themselves.
Nur at least offers her labour in exchange for money (even if it is not accepted by her employers) and doesn’t talk like it’s her entitlement – the posters here seem to think that they should have a say in whom the employer should employ, even though the salary does not come from their own pockets.
66) Dumb and dumber on August 27th, 2009 10.58 am
This also reinforced my belief that brought up by my parents that there is no “free” lunch in singapore, and you better be dead than to be “sick
true! the goverment where got care.
you die also you need to pay then your body can rest peacefully or else just keep it at home till end mth pay day lor….
Godwin seems to think that Temasek is a private company, belonging to a certain wealthy prominent family, and that disbursing money from Temasek constitutes “communism”. Funny no one from Singapore’s opposition has ever mentioned raising taxes on the rich, nor expropriating money or property from them like Teng Liang Hong, not even from the above-mentioned rich family.
If the above-mentioned rich family has nothing to hide, theres no worry their property will be confiscated. With regards to Nur’s case and employment, its called simple human compassion. According to Godwin’s logic, NKF and all charities sponsored by the government should be abolished as well.
The PAP cronies are really worried about their future employment…
71) Godwin on August 27th, 2009 3.21 pm
I think the posters here are commenting on the lack of protection for employees with disabilities like Nur from being disciminated against and not on who the employer should employ.
If our dear govt had first world labour laws and a robust equal employment opportunity system in place, people in her situation would have been accorded some protection with regards to the kinds of employers we have here in this country.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
No free lunch in Singapore, lifetime food for Western bankers and a group of so-called “elites” who are totally incompetent.
71) Godwin
“Why should there be free lunches in Singapore?”
>> Why not? It shows that we have moved up morally from a “mercenary” to a “human being”.
“When was the last time *you* gave a free lunch to someone?”
>> Donation – every month deduct from my salary. – though my wife complains sometimes.
“Fact is you people here don’t want to *give* free lunches to people like Nur, you want to *take* free lunches from from others. From employers whom you think are exploiting workers. From the gahmen, even when that money is actually paid for with taxes by people who earned their money by providing services which others pay for.”
>> I see your point. I feel sorry for you.
“Despite your talk of compassion, empathy, graciousness etc., what you really want is something for nothing. Your position is morally bankrupt, and will render this country financially bankrupt eventually.”
>> LOL… if singapore go down this path, I believe we will be really “morally” bankrupt.
Anyway, the TSK and GIC saga has shown that there is other ways to bankrupt the country and I don’t think advocating a little “compassion” to fellow citizen will bankrupt the country – hey, we just collected $30b in taxes.
Godwin,
when the field is not level between the employers & the employed, there are loopholes to exploit workers. when the labour laws tilt in favour of the employers, with little to balance the concerns of the employed, employers can enjoy “free lunch” on the account of the employed.
add to the fact cheap foreign labour can be easily had, we have a picture that is skewed in favour of employers. hence, any local who does not submit to the whimps & fancy of emloyers here are deemed choosey, inflexible & demanding (after years of 1st world education, is it wrong to yearn for 1st world remuneration?).
“$30b in taxes.”
When is the government going to cut GST and income tax + other taxes and duties related to business to further match HK?
Godwin please advocate this to the government, if you are so keen on advancing the cause of genuine economic conservatism.
“Godwin seems to think that Temasek is a private company”
No, I think Temasek like all companies are answerable to its shareholders. But we are not discussing Temasek, are we?
“According to Godwin’s logic, NKF and all charities sponsored by the government should be abolished as well.”
‘Private’ charities do not compel individuals to give money which do not belong to them, so I have no quarrel with that. However, when the government chooses to ‘donate’ moneys to charities, those are partly my moneys too and I think I should have a say in it.
“I think the posters here are commenting on the lack of protection for employees with disabilities like Nur from being disciminated against and not on who the employer should employ.”
Rubbish. What does “protection for employees with disabilities” translate to if not compelling employers to keep employed those whom they may not wish to employ?
“lifetime food for Western bankers and a group of so-called “elites” who are totally incompetent”
Sure. What an unjust world it is! People with high-paying jobs are invariable incompetent, while people full of compassion and abilities like you are not appreciated.
Anarchy anyone? :D
“People with high-paying jobs are invariable incompetent”
I didnt voice this opinion, you did. But lets see why you dont want to discuss a SWF which just lost $40 billion and retained a CEO who has never worked a single day in the private banking sector before.
Why was Chip Goodyear stopped from even starting his job at Temasek? Explain please. Also please explain why ministers of this island are paid more than the President of United States etc when their responsibilities are greater and for most other political leaders who perform.
Please answer my other points as well.
At the end of the day, as in free markets, let the people decide. If they decide they want more of PAP, Temasek, GIC, Mat Selamat debacle, so be it.
Don’t distort the markets by propping up failed banks and their bankers.
“Donation – every month deduct from my salary. – though my wife complains sometimes.”
Then I salute you. You at least give something of value for what you believe in.
“when the field is not level between the employers & the employed, there are loopholes to exploit workers”
I can see how foreign labour distorts the employment market, but Nur did not lose her job to a foreigner, did she?
In any case, if you bring something of value to the employer, why should he not want to employ you? If you do NOT bring something of greater value than someone who takes a lower pay to the workplace, why shouldn’t the employer not want to employ you?
Likewise, if your employer does not offer you enough value for your work, why should you work for him?
In the end, the fair way of doing things to to expect value for value, to not compel someone to employ against his wishes, or compel someone to be employed against his wishes.
Will you employ someone who cannot fulfill his work requirement when there are others who are? If not, why should you expect to be employed for a job where you cannot fulfill the requirements? If someone who cannot do the job as well as you is employed over you, wouldn’t you cry foul?
I ask these questions repeatedly, because no one has come up to say that they will employ someone who cannot do the work, or that they expect to be paid for work they do not do, or that they think it’s OK for someone who cannot do the work as well to be employed over them.
We all know it is wrong. We all know it is unfair. Yet we are asking it from Nur’s employers. We are asking it from people who may not get a job because Nur’s employer was made to keep her on the job (someone else got a job when Nur was sacked, remember? Does she not deserve a chance to work?).
You hate the gahmen – fine. There are many things they have done which deserve your hatred. But that does not mean that it changes basic economic truths, that the opposite of what they say is always true or good.
Could Temasek have been run such that we didn’t lose so much money? Maybe.
Will be all have more disposable income and still have good quality public infrastructure? Most likely.
Should people who cannot fulfill their job obligations nevertheless be paid the same salary?
Well?
“However, when the government chooses to ‘donate’ moneys to charities, those are partly my moneys too and I think I should have a say in it.”
Please raise this issue with the government if you feel strongly about it, most likely your “request” will be ignored as well.
Omega Lee, you answered the questions you posed in #81 on your post in #82. :)
Justice is when people offer something of value when they take something of value. It applies for workers like Nur, and it should apply for ministers and bankers too.
Sorry, third last sentence from #83 should read:
“Will we all have more disposable income and still have good quality public infrastructure if taxes were reduced? Most likely.”
TOC please run the article when Nur is employed because of YOUR assistance.
Godwin,
“Rubbish. What does “protection for employees with disabilities” translate to if not compelling employers to keep employed those whom they may not wish to employ?”
hmmm, so how do you suggest they be self sustainable? by relying on charity? but as far as chrarity goes, it still is dependant on charitable individuals & organisations, so what happens when these charities run out of funds? they are left for dead?
if employees are bound by the varies laws to serve the contract. why, is it so hard to extend similiar rights to employees?
“Justice is when people offer something of value when they take something of value. It applies for workers like Nur, and it should apply for ministers and bankers too.”
I suggest you use the dictionary for the word “justice” I think you mean equity. As mentioned, if the Singaporean people feel that the ministers are worth their million dollar pay, then let them continue to vote for PAP and vice versa. Please dont rig the polls if they dont.
Dont get me wrong Godwin, I am all for people working in the private sector and not mixing charity with business, and that goes for able bodied people working off the government and their related companies. I am sure if nothing because of PR (Ever heard of such a thing?), someone would hire Nur if her condition does not worsen, in which case healthcare comes into play here.
With regards to value, hopefully the skillsets required by the employer are genuine ones and not apple polishing or political propaganda. Commercial marketing is fine…
“how do you suggest they be self sustainable? by relying on charity?”
By finding an avenue where they can obtain something of value by giving something of value in return?
As I wrote earlier I have no quarrel with voluntary charity (the word ‘voluntary’ is not a redundancy in this disucssion…), but to compel charity from employers whose role is to provide a service and employment and make profits is unfair.
If charities run out of fund because no one is willing to donate, then does it make it the responsibility of individual employers to employ these people? Is that just? Why should they pay to keep people with disabilities alive when others will not?
“I think you mean equity”
No, I am quite sure I mean justice, because I think trading something of value for value is a moral thing – to demand value when you give none in return is immoral.
“With regards to value, hopefully the skillsets required by the employer are genuine ones and not apple polishing or political propaganda.”
Yes, I think that forms the cornerstone of my stand in this thread – that what value the employer found lacking from Nur was ‘genuine’ ones related to her work and not because she happened to be sick/Malay/female/single mother. That would be discrimination as TOC alleged, and ultimately self-destructive for her employers.
Godwin,
post #91 on August 27th, 2009 4.58 pm
“By finding an avenue where they can obtain something of value by giving something of value in return?”
any examples on the avenues?
“but to compel charity from employers whose role is to provide a service and employment and make profits is unfair.”
please do not conflate flexibility & empathy with charity.
Godwin,
“No, I am quite sure I mean justice, because I think trading something of value for value is a moral thing – to demand value when you give none in return is immoral.”
to say Nur give nothing just by leaving early is quite a long shot isn’t it?
“any examples on the avenues?”
By getting a job where your disability is not a handicap. Blind people can work over phones, people who need wheelchairs can get a job where getting from point-to-point frequently is not required. If you are not qualified for a job, find one that you are qualified for.
“please do not conflate flexibility & empathy with charity.”
Fine, then let me rephrase:
“To compel flexibility & empathy from employers whose role is to provide a service and employment and make profits is unfair.”
Funny how when we ask someone to “be flexible” or “to empathise” we are always asking them to give more or accept less, isn’t it?
93) Godwin on August 27th, 2009 5.05 pm
The problem is we do not know if the ‘values’ her employers found lacking were genuine or not. If it were due to her poor performance , wouldn’t her previous employers have sacked her immediately? If it were not, wouldn’t she have been unfairly made to leave when her contract expired?
The problem is employees like her do not enjoy sufficient protection under our existing labour laws and coupled with weak enforcement from our MOM officials and weak union laws, the situation is made even worse. Employers here know the current laws are favorable towards them and they will exploit it to their advantage.
Her request for reasonable accomodation from employers due to her illness is not overly demanding. I’m sure a more flexible schedule could have been arranged by letting her come in early or work late on the days where she does not need to seek treatment. Unfortunately, her previous employers may have just chosen to take the easy way out.
http://www.ada.gov/workta.htm
“to say Nur give nothing just by leaving early is quite a long shot isn’t it?”
Fine, nitpick. I’ll rephrase:
“To demand the same value in exchange when you give less than you agreed to is immoral.”
“No, I am quite sure I mean justice, because I think trading something of value for value is a moral thing – to demand value when you give none in return is immoral.”
When has morality anything to do with commerce, except that there can be never any coercion as in inequitable labor in National Service? Value is a subjective thing; something totally useless for someone may be useful for another and vice versa. Apart from money and living essentials.
“that what value the employer found lacking from Nur was ‘genuine’ ones related to her work and not because she happened to be sick/Malay/female/single mother.”
Thats your assumption. Are you her former employer?
Q: When has morality anything to do with commerce?
A: Value is a subjective thing. I happen to think that trading something of value for something of value in return is a moral thing to do. Just think what the alternative would be.
“That’s your assumption.”
Yes, that is my assumption. TOC’s assumption was that it was not. If I am wrong, then all the arguments I have put forth in this discussion become irrelevant to Nur’s case (but not wrong in principle). If I am correct, then TOC is wrong to cry discrimination.
Maybe Nur should try out NTUC Income. I know they have alot of paperwork to handle & always on a lookout for temp/contract staffs.