<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>June 18, 2009
EXPLOITED FOREIGN WORKERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Why can't they job-hop?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Tuesday's article, 'Quit a job, fly home...then return to a higher paid one', which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as 'job-hoppers'.
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. I have spoken to a significant number of China construction workers who work long hours (24-hour shifts have been noted), seven days a week, and without overtime pay. While workers generally file official complaints of unpaid wages, many also endure poor quality meals, oppressive managerial control and abject living conditions.
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as 'job-hoppers' ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. Work permit holders are not allowed to switch employers in Singapore. Once they return to China, they have to pay agency fees ranging in the thousands once more in order to return, increasing debts they have yet to repay, particularly if they have been in Singapore for only a short while.
Third, job-hopping is cited as a serious issue of concern among white-collar professionals in Singapore ('Job-hopping, poaching drive up staff costs'; Business Times, April 3 last year). In response, companies are encouraged to find ways to attract and retain staff.
In other words, when white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfilment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. The rational response, in this case, is for companies to ensure staff will be motivated to stay.
Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable. Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash-flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay. Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Stephanie Chok (Ms) <!-- end of for each --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->
EXPLOITED FOREIGN WORKERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Why can't they job-hop?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Tuesday's article, 'Quit a job, fly home...then return to a higher paid one', which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as 'job-hoppers'.
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. I have spoken to a significant number of China construction workers who work long hours (24-hour shifts have been noted), seven days a week, and without overtime pay. While workers generally file official complaints of unpaid wages, many also endure poor quality meals, oppressive managerial control and abject living conditions.
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as 'job-hoppers' ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. Work permit holders are not allowed to switch employers in Singapore. Once they return to China, they have to pay agency fees ranging in the thousands once more in order to return, increasing debts they have yet to repay, particularly if they have been in Singapore for only a short while.
Third, job-hopping is cited as a serious issue of concern among white-collar professionals in Singapore ('Job-hopping, poaching drive up staff costs'; Business Times, April 3 last year). In response, companies are encouraged to find ways to attract and retain staff.
In other words, when white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfilment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. The rational response, in this case, is for companies to ensure staff will be motivated to stay.
Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable. Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash-flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay. Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Stephanie Chok (Ms) <!-- end of for each --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->
