Ang Moh: Donch Allow Sporns Flexibility! Enslave Them!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Legislating flexi-work
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Let's not fall into the Dutch welfare trap </TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->SINGAPORE may introduce legislation requiring employers to allow part-time work, and carry the cost. As a Dutch citizen whose country has such laws, may I sound a word of caution?
Singapore has built a successful economy partly by holding people responsible for their choices while supporting the needy. In many Western economies, people push the consequences of their decisions on work-life balance, family size and the like to other citizens via welfare, unemployment benefits, childcare subsidies, long paid holidays, long maternity leave and part-time employment. Labour becomes expensive and inflexible. The associated high tax rates remove the incentive to work hard and take risk.
Singapore cannot afford to fall into this welfare trap. It would lose its competitive position both as supplier of goods and services as well as employer of world-class talent.
Putting the burden on employers is unfair. Having children is a personal decision. As part of the national birth rate, it is perhaps a topic of public policy. But never is an employer more than an innocent bystander.
Therefore, if the workplace becomes an instrument of public policy, the cost should be borne by the Government. That cost is considerable: Capital (machinery, office space) is used less efficiently if tasks are shared between staff.
Another cost is lower flexibility of part-timers. People work part-time because they have other commitments they either must or want to honour.
To have sufficient capacity, an employer will need more full-time employees when using part-timers, as opposed to asking full-timers to work longer sometimes and take time off later as compensation.
Finally, why seek higher birth rates as the reason? The world population is already too large. Global warming, food shortages and pollution are problems partly caused by population pressure. Ageing populations are not an evil to be battled. They are an unavoidable adjustment process to reduce the world population.
Take Singapore. A population of almost five million is already an ambitious target. What is the purpose of making a large part of the population semi-redundant so they can grow the population, mainly to grow an economy which we have first shrunk by allowing people to work part-time?
A smaller number of fully employed people must be the better option.
Wilfred Frederik Nagel

 

[makapaaa]

SPG wife of the ang moh above?

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>In Netherlands, it's a joy to be working parents
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->DR ANDY Ho's commentary, 'Give women the right to ask bosses for flexi-work' (Aug 25), was thought-provoking.
My husband and I started a family because we were emotionally and mentally ready, not because of government incentives.
When I wanted to work after maternity leave in the Netherlands, my employer and society enabled me to work part-time.
Dutch legislation gives parents the right to work part-time in the form of parental leave until a child is seven years old. We both chose to work four days a week and could still make a difference at work, while sharing parenting responsibilities.
As a working mother in Dutch society, I was actually frowned on for spending more than 50 per cent of the week working.
NTUC deputy secretary-general Halimah Yacob's reply to Dr Ho last Thursday ('Legislation has its pitfalls') warns against introducing flexi-work laws.
However, highlighting examples of flexi-work can only take us so far if employees do not have legislated basic protection.
Dr Ho is right that many societies still view women as primary caregivers, which is why some companies provide special parental leave for working mothers and not for fathers. This is also why most parental benefits are consumed by women, even in forward-thinking Scandinavia.
Breaking societal stereotypes applies not only to gender roles, but also to employees' roles. Many firms have flexi-work policies but take-up rates are low because signing up for them is tantamount to committing career hara-kiri.
The few who dare do not always have their workloads adjusted and are still expected to respond to work demands outside work hours. Employers' expectations lag behind that of the new workforce whose members seek work-life balance.
Many working mothers have no choice but to work full-time for financial reasons, and having children is but a tick in the box of married life.
Friends wonder why we do not have a maid to whom we can outsource not only the cleaning, but also the love and child rearing.
It is simple: How can we expect paid help to impart our love and values? When our daughter is 16 years old and slams the door in adolescent angst, we will have no regrets that we were not there for her.
Joyce Loh (Ms)
<!-- end of for each --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Bosses won't become more enlightened without laws
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with great interest the commentary by Dr Andy Ho on British women's right to ask employers for flexi-work arrangements ('Give women the right to ask bosses for flexi-work', Aug 25). I also refer to comments by Madam Halimah Yacob, deputy secretary-general of NTUC and its director of the women's development secretariat: 'Our working mothers deserve more support and understanding from everyone. They particularly need more enlightened employers.' ('Legislation has its pitfalls', last Thursday.)
The current Baby Bonus scheme addresses mainly child-bearing and some financial aspects, but not the long-term issue of child-rearing. Quality childcare centres address only part of working mothers' concerns in child-rearing. A working mother's woe is her limited amount of available time, hence the desire to maximise her time with her child.
It is naive to expect employers to become more 'enlightened' with no definitive change in legislation to enforce flexi-work arrangements for working mothers, given that employers are profit-driven. In the absence of legislation, profit-driven organisations and human resource practices will, at best, change at a snail's pace. This, I think, is Dr Ho's point when he highlighted the statutory rights of women in Britain to ask for flexi-work arrangements. How else, without legislation? Why are there statutory provisions to protect pregnant women from abuse by employers in the first place?
It is also naive to expect society to evolve overnight with men assuming more child-rearing responsibilities traditionally borne by their wives. While this is desirable, it will be a long-haul change requiring time and patience.
Instead of focusing on the pitfalls of legislation or hoping there will be 'more enlightened employers', the authorities should come up with definitive ways for employers to carry part of the social costs, in order to ease the woes of working mothers. Dangling a financial carrot alone for child-bearing has proven to be ineffective in increasing the birth rate. As a working mother, I have been waiting for the day when flexi-work arrangements are available, as in many other developed societies.
Amanda Kwan (Mdm)

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Legislation gives flexi-work the teeth it needs to succeed
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with interest Madam Halimah Yacob's letter last Thursday, 'Legislation has its pitfalls'.
I applaud the joint efforts of the National Trades Union Congress and Workforce Development Agency in promoting employment of women by setting up the Flexi-Works! fund. However, if the law is implemented, it will definitely strengthen the popularity of flexi-work.
As mentioned by Madam Halimah, this fund has so far benefited 132 companies which placed 4,130 women on flexi-work. But this figure is relatively small when compared with the thousands of registered companies and businesses and considering that 51 per cent of women in Singapore are in the workforce.
If we do not have a law to guide and enforce the implementation of flexi-work, a significant number of employers will be reluctant to comply, fearing that flexi-work will mean more temporary or additional manpower, and higher operating costs. Hence, women here will not enjoy the benefits of legislation like Britain's Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002.
Singapore faces the prospect of having insufficient workers and talent to sustain long-term economic development. But women in the workforce today are more educated, mature, open-minded and career-minded, and they can undertake any jobs and perform them as well as men.
I think most sensible employers recognise this fact, and they would like to employ more female employees than before. They treasure and pay tribute to their female employees for their contributions.
Therefore, I also doubt that, as Madam Halimah said, employers may refuse to employ women to avoid prosecution for non-compliance with the demand for flexibility under the legislation.
I appreciate efforts by trade unions and the authorities to urge more employers to practise flexi-work by highlighting more positive examples of companies that have embraced flexi-work, which benefits both employers and employees. However, there is nothing to lose if the authorities amend the law to strengthen the enforcement of flexi-work in the workplace.
Teo Kueh Liang

 

[besotted]

Singaporeans too fussy want moon and stars and sky

Import 1.5 million PRCs and our economic growth targets will be taken care of

Don't need follow all these stupid Western plans that cost honest taxpayer arm and leg