The hole the Singapore worker has fallen into
By Tan Kee Wee.
4 March 2003
Business Times Singapore
Shunning 'dirty' jobs in manufacturing - which foreigners readily accept - the local worker has made himself less desirable to employers
IN a simple world, many lower-skilled workers retrenched in recent years should be able to secure jobs for themselves pretty quickly. This is because there are actually quite a number of jobs around.
That so many retrenched Singaporeans have not been able to find jobs could be partly their fault; it could also be partly due to our employers' fault. To be fair, it might be said they are both victims of circumstances unique to Singapore.
Let's begin with the perceived fault of the workers, especially those in the manufacturing sector. For more than a decade, manufacturing firms have been crying out for Singaporeans to join their workforce as machinists and in various other semi-skilled types of work.
But Singaporeans who are qualified to take up these jobs did not want to. This was even after they had been specially trained by technical and vocational institutes for such jobs. Such jobs usually entail working in shifts. amd under sweaty and greasy conditions. These are precisely the conditions which many young Singaporeans shun - they are considered 'dirty' jobs.
For a few dollars less, these Singaporeans would rather choose to go behind the counters of fast-food restaurants and work in the comfort of an air-conditioned environment.
So, in one sense, it is the workers' fault. They have shown themselves to be too choosy when it comes to securing jobs. Worse, they tend to use their employers as stepping stones when better job offers come their way.
In the past decade, when the Asian economies were surging ahead, this shunning and job-hopping behaviour was especially prevalent. Jobs were plentiful for many young Singaporeans. So they could pick and choose - and pick and choose they did.
In that kind of situation, employers were given a negative impression of the Singapore worker. In despair, many Singapore manufacturing firms had no choice but to hire workers from India, Malaysia, the Philippines and China, to fill up such 'dirty' job vacancies.
Over the years, the government, in an effort to help our manufacturers, has introduced many rules to help our firms employ foreigners - to the extent that, today, there are many more advantages to be had from employing foreign workers.
Not only do these foreign workers readily put up with such 'dirty' conditions, they are more committed to their work. After all, foreign workers do not need to spend quality time with their families, since their families are not in Singapore anyway.
One other major advantage is that, when foreign workers are brought in, they are obliged to serve at least two years with the firm which hired them. This is one of the terms of their work permits. In other words, these foreign workers can't just quit or switch jobs within the two years.
This is a condition which the Singapore workers do not have to face. It is therefore easy to understand why, after so many years of dealing with the poor attitude of Singapore workers, many manufacturing firms will always prefer to hire foreign workers; at least they are assured that the training and experience employers impart to the foreign workers will not be lost for at least two years.
Unfortunately, our manufacturers' negative impression that the Singapore worker is less desirable (compared to foreigners) has not changed in these difficult times. They are still not hiring Singaporeans, and are not really willing to.
But who can blame them? Through his uninspiring past track record, the Singapore worker has stumbled into a hole - largely of his own creation - and many employers are not willing to stretch out a hand now to help him.
The government, through the Work Permit Department and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), has done much to break this impasse by encouraging firms to hire jobless Singaporeans.
On one hand, they try to restrict the supply of foreign workers by issuing fewer work permits, or make it harder to get one issued. And on the other hand, they try and encourage local hiring.
MOM has come up with many schemes to help firms hire jobless Singaporeans. One of them is their Place and Train Programme (PTP). Under PTP, employers choose their prospective workers without the relevant experience.
But before these workers start work, they are first trained in the relevant skills by recognised training institutions. MOM supports the workers and firms by paying most of the training course fees and their salaries while they are being trained.
MOM has even come up with a special scheme to help those above 40 years of age. Under its People for Jobs Traineeship Programme (PJTP), all the firm needs to do is hire and train unemployed matured workers. In return, MOM will give a wage support of 50 per cent, capped at $2,000 a month over six months.
Despite the good intentions of MOM, employers are not taking up these schemes with gusto. In fact, the response to these two schemes has been less than lukewarm.
To recap, employers think that the Singapore worker is not serious about a career in their factories. And even if they employ these jobless workers now, the perception is that it is only a matter of time before they job-hop again.
One way out of this dilemma is for the potential worker to assure potential employers, in one way or other, that they are committed to their new careers.
Taking into account the current state of the job market, especially in the sunset industries, the jobless should have no reason not to be committed to new careers, and should be more than willing to work. But this might not be good enough, from the employers' viewpoint.
Perhaps, as an added measure, a two-year bond, with the usual penalty clauses, could be drawn up to reassure employers of the worker's commitment and resolve to carve a new career. That way, in the employers' eyes, the Singapore worker would be on an equal footing with the foreign worker as far as the employment period is concerned.
However, it must be added that the current contract between the foreign worker and the Singapore employer is one-sided: the worker cannot quit within two years - but he can be retrenched. It would seem very unfair to impose this condition on the Singapore worker.
A variation of this bond is preferable. For instance, to encourage loyalty, the employer could withhold a portion of the monthly payment and release it only on completion of two years' service.
If there are no legal and social objections to this suggestion, or any variations of this suggestion, we should encourage such bonds to be drawn up. This can only encourage more of our employers to reach out to the jobless Singaporeans stuck in their holes.
The writer is the director of research & corporate communications at the Singapore Confederation of Industries.
