Has he really done anything to deserve this award?
-
it's to honour the brownest nose around...
-
I guess even the most useless minister and ex SAFOS around needs some "love"
-
It is the RIGHT Hand organising the award to the LEFT Hand, while the Feet remained bound and anchored to the ground.
Unfortunately, neither the RIGHT Hand nor the LEFT Hand is the boss deciding the award, and neither is the Brain seen to be making the decision.
Is it remarkable how the silent one - sitting midway to the bottom, but to the rear - has the best shot at being the BOSS ?
All an AR-SE-HO.LE need to do, is to hijack this role with a total shut down, and the entire system will stink and must recognise this AR.SE-Ho.le as the Boss so as to receive authorisation to purge the burden from the system.
In a system that stinks, the AR.SE-Ho.le is the only Supreme Boss. -
-
To me, I do not know what the award is for... Most probably only those with special post would get the awards whether he or she really contributes... Seriously, I also dun care.
-
they can approve their million dollar salary and approve another couple million dollar increment... so what's an award.
-
I cannot say whether he deserves it.
I have not worked in NTUC, nor am in a close enough position to observe what he has contributed over the years from an objective point of view to give a fair statement.
Any one who can provide insight to this? -
In Singapore if an employer wants to short-change the employee's contractual rights like depriving him of the need for proper termination notice or compensation or 13th month bonus entitlement, the employer can easily do so without any worry.Originally posted by CM06:I cannot say whether he deserves it.
I have not worked in NTUC, nor am in a close enough position to observe what he has contributed over the years from an objective point of view to give a fair statement.
Any one who can provide insight to this?
For the weaker contractual party like the employee, he cannot turn to NTUC or MOM for help except in their own showcases of unionism basically just for whow.
The only recourse is to employee to engage his own lawyer to fight for your right.
MOM will not interfere. I have come across one case myself where employee after contacting the MOM has received no help and he finally had to fight the employer who persecuted the employee because of some internal politics.
The MOM did not reply to employee's call for help. Why ? Because for years, NTUC under Lim Boon Heng only know about employers' rights and the need to protect their economic competitiveness and afraid to legislate such protections except in union's own cases which they could reconcile to protect the employer's rights in better showcases and in collective agreement cases.
During bad times like recessions, the only thing about NTUC and MOM know is how to increase our employer's economic competitiveness through deducting workers' CPF and making workers' wages variable or opening the doors to allow foreigners to come in and lower our citizens' wage costs.
What else does Mr. Lim Boon Heng know to deserve the labour award? -
Left hand give right hand.......
-
robertteh, you work for ntuc ah? Know so much! Does he do anything else?
-
Left hand giving award to right hand....haha.
Yeh, so that makes an award so meaningless right. Only people here have the cheek to do so. -
Long ago when our leaders kept insisting they are leaders or talents and they are the pragmatic lot and they are right and the only way to go is to push for tripartism in the union instead of established a fair and more balanced social order between employers and employees, many problems were already caused.Originally posted by CM06:robertteh, you work for ntuc ah? Know so much! Does he do anything else?
But when people criticise the government on their wrong labour policies the leaders were too proud to admit their own judgmental errors.
Today we have seen a lot of exploitations of the labour and many wrong doings like NKF, Shin Corp and now lately we are seeing worse - our ministers continue to fight for their own self-rewards even though they are already wrongly benchmarked to and getting the world's highest bill collector and policing salaries even though they have hardly succeeded in improving their livelihood of ordinary citizens.
Despite all hardship by many ordinary citizens to feed themselves three meals a day our ministers are seen to be the uncaring lot and still trying to use their controlled media and cyber agents to intercede for them to make them look they are right.
What hypocrisy ? Can't they just learn that if 20 years of this type of self-centred governing system cannot address our social problems and rich-poor divide it is too early to talk about their talents and achievements.
I do hope the younger leaders are not like this and will soon speak up for people's problems and get their supreme leader to change for the change of all and forget about his own pride or face. -
would anyone want to do anything to rock their career ?
-
Example of an At-will employment agreement clause among employers in Singapore:
During the probationary period, your employment may be terminated by either party giving 1 month written notice. After comfirmation, either party may terminate this agreement at any time before the end of the contract period by giving the other one month written notice of termination, provided that either party may terminate this agreement without notice or by giving the other party a sum equal to the salary the employee would have earned during the notice period or the period for which the notice period has fallen short of the one month notice of termination.
Although at-will employment allows an employee to quit for no reason, the rule that either party can terminate the relationship is most often invoked when an employer wants to fire an employee at any time. Since this practice virtually eliminates job security, it can create an atmosphere of fear that may contribute to workplace bullying.
There is no exceptions to at-will employment created in Singapore.
The clause is in favour of the employer, with the burden of proof on the discharged employee.
This clause is not favourable to an employee who took maternity leave and lost her job.
And also for employees pressured to resign by the employer. As far as I know, thereÂ’s no legal concept call constructive termination in Singapore employment law.
In constructive termination an employee quits her job because her working conditions have become unbearable. The resignation is voluntary. A court, however, might view such a resignation as involuntary because by not repairing the working situation, the employer has, in effect, forced the employee to leave.
This can happen in other first world countriesÂ’ courts but donÂ’t think it will happen in Singapore.Originally posted by robertteh:In Singapore if an employer wants to short-change the employee's contractual rights like depriving him of the need for proper termination notice or compensation or 13th month bonus entitlement, the employer can easily do so without any worry.
For the weaker contractual party like the employee, he cannot turn to NTUC or MOM for help except in their own showcases of unionism basically just for whow.
The only recourse is to employee to engage his own lawyer to fight for your right.
MOM will not interfere. I have come across one case myself where employee after contacting the MOM has received no help and he finally had to fight the employer who persecuted the employee because of some internal politics.
The MOM did not reply to employee's call for help. Why ? Because for years, NTUC under Lim Boon Heng only know about employers' rights and the need to protect their economic competitiveness and afraid to legislate such protections except in union's own cases which they could reconcile to protect the employer's rights in better showcases and in collective agreement cases.
During bad times like recessions, the only thing about NTUC and MOM know is how to increase our employer's economic competitiveness through deducting workers' CPF and making workers' wages variable or opening the doors to allow foreigners to come in and lower our citizens' wage costs.
What else does Mr. Lim Boon Heng know to deserve the labour award? -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
At-will employment agreement may sound that both parties are at will to terminate a contract, the fact of life is the stronger party is always able to exploit the weaker party like Power Supply increasing its electricity charges claiming the oil prices have increased world-wide.
Example of an At-will employment agreement clause among employers in Singapore:
[b]During the probationary period, your employment may be terminated by either party giving 1 month written notice. After comfirmation, either party may terminate this agreement at any time before the end of the contract period by giving the other one month written notice of termination, provided that either party may terminate this agreement without notice or by giving the other party a sum equal to the salary the employee would have earned during the notice period or the period for which the notice period has fallen short of the one month notice of termination.
Although at-will employment allows an employee to quit for no reason, the rule that either party can terminate the relationship is most often invoked when an employer wants to fire an employee at any time. Since this practice virtually eliminates job security, it can create an atmosphere of fear that may contribute to workplace bullying.
There is no exceptions to at-will employment created in Singapore.
The clause is in favour of the employer, with the burden of proof on the discharged employee.
This clause is not favourable to an employee who took maternity leave and lost her job.
And also for employees pressured to resign by the employer. As far as I know, thereÂ’s no legal concept call constructive termination in Singapore employment law.
In constructive termination an employee quits her job because her working conditions have become unbearable. The resignation is voluntary. A court, however, might view such a resignation as involuntary because by not repairing the working situation, the employer has, in effect, forced the employee to leave.
This can happen in other first world countriesÂ’ courts but donÂ’t think it will happen in Singapore.
[/b]
Once an employee signs the bottom line, he is at the whims and fancies of the employer as the employee is no longer as fluid as the employer to get another offer - at least not so easy for most employees" - who could easily advertise to get a number of candidates to fill up the vacancy.
So in actual life, an employee has little contractual right as the employer and whatever that is written into an employment contract to give the employer those right the employer could just apply those right to the extent of not complying with the contractual rights of the employee.
A government is elected to represent the people and protect the people against exploitation by the strong and wicked. Is it wrong to expect our government to go back to this principle and do something to redress a one-sided employee-employer labor relation justified as tripartism to better protect the employer.