Alpha-S also wants to benchmark pilot salaries like minister
-
I would stop short of calling all GLC-linked bosses as 'fatly-paid' mercenaries who devise new costs structures to reduce the wages of the grunts and surbordinates.Originally posted by Atobe:Is it not typical to pay the top the highest possible obscene pay, so that he can think of ways to cut all possible costs of all stratas below his level so as to make it profitable ?
What is the cost of the top level management as a percentage to the total wage bill, and comparing it to the man hours of productive activity that will generate profit measurable in units of currency ?
It will be obvious that those at the bottom levels put together will produce a higher productive output that generate most of the profit in the organisation compared to any that can be measured from those at the top levels.
Sadly, management always justify their high wages and will always attempt to cut the costs of those at the bottom, whose combined total will weigh heavier.
Unfortunately, short sighted management will fail to recognise that it is the combined effort of those at the bottom that generate the profit output from the total economic enterprise.
Some are indeed ethical, especially from my time in a large GLC.
However, they lack certain examples which promote a long-lost virtue of employees - company loyalty. With the onset of high wages, everyone is looking to improve their salaries. It's a no-brainer. If another company comes in with a better offer, 10 to 1 the employee won't even think twice.
In local Japanese companies that i have worked, during the height of the east asian economic crisis, top management took a 20% pay cut, compared to a 10% for lower level managers and 5% for the average technician. These efforts were made to preserve jobs, citing the mass lay-offs at SIA during this time (pilots included).
As a result of this lesson, the MVC was introduced into the employment contract to ensure no repeats of such poorly handled incidents.
Yet having worked with several mainland Japs, i find that these people have a deep sense of loyalty to whichever company they join, so much so that many of them see themselves working there for life.
Leadership by example seems to be preached very often, but apparently not openly practiced by local govt linked firms. -
How to leave when most are bonded by Training Bonds? And yes, foreign pilots do leave after their bonds are over.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Market forces will decide. There are plenty of airlines around...market forces and competition will determine the most equitable salary package. If the pilots think they can get a better pay elsewhere, go!
However, for the local boys, this is HOME. -
I think the concern is not whether pilots take off and run for better pay. It's the dearth of talent left behind.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Market forces will decide. There are plenty of airlines around...market forces and competition will determine the most equitable salary package. If the pilots think they can get a better pay elsewhere, go!
More than that, the reputation of SIA is at stake. Imagine the market forces that will repel potential pilot application when seasoned veterans learn that a top notch carrier like SIA is unwilling to pay top salaries.
The argument of the airline management is furthermore completely unsound. Comparing VPs to Pilots? There is no basis given the apple to orange comparison. What about differences in benefits, bonuses, club memberships, special privileges for VPs? And VPs are not even at the top of the food chain whereas pilots hitting 'captain' will max out their career paths.
Are VPs responsible for passenger lives on a daily basis? Can they therefore be compared in terms of salary base, given their nice comfy air-conditioned office?
SIA can possibly mislead the public to some extent, but after the ministerial debacle, not everyone's a fool. -
I don't know about you, but I was in a certain GLC, that announced retrenchment soon after I joined.Originally posted by BillyBong:I would stop short of calling all GLC-linked bosses as 'fatly-paid' mercenaries who devise new costs structures to reduce the wages of the grunts and surbordinates.
Some are indeed ethical, especially from my time in a large GLC.
However, they lack certain examples which promote a long-lost virtue of employees - company loyalty. With the onset of high wages, everyone is looking to improve their salaries. It's a no-brainer. If another company comes in with a better offer, 10 to 1 the employee won't even think twice.
In local Japanese companies that i have worked, during the height of the east asian economic crisis, top management took a 20% pay cut, compared to a 10% for lower level managers and 5% for the average technician. These efforts were made to preserve jobs, citing the mass lay-offs at SIA during this time (pilots included).
As a result of this lesson, the MVC was introduced into the employment contract to ensure no repeats of such poorly handled incidents.
Yet having worked with several mainland Japs, i find that these people have a deep sense of loyalty to whichever company they join, so much so that many of them see themselves working there for life.
Leadership by example seems to be preached very often, but apparently not openly practiced by local govt linked firms.
Before the retrenchment, everyone regarded the place as home, and are willing to make sacrifices for the company.
It was even noted that this GLC had NO problems with their profits or revenues, and only started a retrenchment exercise coz a certain PM Lee said that 'its better to retrench in good times than in bad times'.
I do not see the logic in that. After retrenchment, people who remained became more mercenary, and no one wants to sacrifice for a company that retrenches people 'JUST IN CASE'. They axed people whom were loyal for years to them.
And after retrenchment? They started hiring again! So what's the basis of the retrenchment then? Just for show?
Till now, you see what the govt is doing again. 'Its good to raise GST in good times than in bad times', 'Its good to raise ministerial pay in good times than in bad times'. Whole day, the same old govt excuse.
So if you know you need to s**t in the toilet everyday, tell me, are you going to squat there the entire day and wait, coz its good to be there beforehand and prepare to s**t, than to wait till you want to s**t and then find a toilet? -
All I know is that SIA is walking down the same old path that all SG GLCs walk, going down the "CHEAP and GOOD" path again.Originally posted by BillyBong:I think the concern is not whether pilots take off and run for better pay. It's the dearth of talent left behind.
More than that, the reputation of SIA is at stake. Imagine the market forces that will repel potential pilot application when seasoned veterans learn that a top notch carrier like SIA is unwilling to pay top salaries.
The argument of the airline management is furthermore completely unsound. Comparing VPs to Pilots? There is no basis given the apple to orange comparison. What about differences in benefits, bonuses, club memberships, special privileges for VPs? And VPs are not even at the top of the food chain whereas pilots hitting 'captain' will max out their career paths.
Are VPs responsible for passenger lives on a daily basis? Can they therefore be compared in terms of salary base, given their nice comfy air-conditioned office?
SIA can possibly mislead the public to some extent, but after the ministerial debacle, not everyone's a fool.
In the end, they don't care if pilots leave. Just train new pilots whom are cheaper and increase their bottomline.
To me, if the pilots leave, I personally believe that the potential accidents that can occur to SIA will increase, coz they are not retaining the good pilots, and promoting new ones faster than normal. -
[quote]Originally posted by soul_rage:
[b]
In the end, they don't care if pilots leave. Just train new pilots whom are cheaper and increase their bottomline.
slight amendment to tat. train them and bond them... then do wat the govn does when they decide to break a bond... publicise and criticize them for being ungrateful. -
In Singapore the cheaper the better.
But of course this concept doesn't apply to ministers.
-
It's obvious that your company was reducing its wage cost, getting younger and 'cheaper' labour to replace their aging hands, who incidently form the 'high earners' catagory.Originally posted by soul_rage:And after retrenchment? They started hiring again! So what's the basis of the retrenchment then? Just for show?
Till now, you see what the govt is doing again. 'Its good to raise GST in good times than in bad times', 'Its good to raise ministerial pay in good times than in bad times'. Whole day, the same old govt excuse.
So if you know you need to s**t in the toilet everyday, tell me, are you going to squat there the entire day and wait, coz its good to be there beforehand and prepare to s**t, than to wait till you want to s**t and then find a toilet?
This is consistent with some neutral observations: why are the old birds at the top keeping their jobs while those lower down the food chain are being axed? Are they staying relevant by sacking the lower rungs to suit their needs? What about pay cuts as an option?
This level of dissent can never be understood by those isolated in ivory towers. -
I would like to further add that, on top of retrenchment, they took the opportunity to cut pay + pay freeze. Great eh? Reason? Oh its good to freeze pay now in good times than to do it in bad times.Originally posted by BillyBong:It's obvious that your company was reducing its wage cost, getting younger and 'cheaper' labour to replace their aging hands, who incidently form the 'high earners' catagory.
This is consistent with some neutral observations: why are the old birds at the top keeping their jobs while those lower down the food chain are being axed? Are they staying relevant by sacking the lower rungs to suit their needs? What about pay cuts as an option?
This level of dissent can never be understood by those isolated in ivory towers.
Also, one of their excuses of cutting staff/cutting pay, is that "Wages form 40% of the total expenses in the company. So we need to reduce wages to lower the percentage of wage cost against the total expenses". Its the SAME excuse they are using now in SIA, "Pilots wages form 39% of the total expenses in the company". Now you see it...
In fact, to lower wages as a percentage to total cost, the other option is to... INCREASE expenses aside from wage expense. Buy more computers, more chairs, more golf clubs for those in the ivory towers. Expenses go up, and there you have it, Wages are now a lower percentage of total cost.
Its all a fiasco, and they only present numbers so alarming that suit their needs. -
I don't know the entire story but I think that the pilots salary were frozen for a long time during the recessionary period and with their last CA, most of them got their backpay, increments and owed bonuses paid back. Thus it's really not very fair to say that they had pay rise of at least 15% since 2001, I should think.
-
anyway, many of the old birds can't leave just like that. they have spent their entire career and lives with SIA. which other airline want to hire old men due to retire in a few years time when they can get younger ones. and if some of these old hands get hired, they may have to uproot and leave home which i think many of them are reluctant to do so too.
a pilot is a skilled career, can't do anything else much if he doesn't fly. and the old birds are "too old" to learn new stuff and take a big paycut.... can't pay their bills man.... -
your common argument often deployed in your postings of `not happy, ah, get lost lah....' is both myopic and dangerous.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Market forces will decide. There are plenty of airlines around...market forces and competition will determine the most equitable salary package. If the pilots think they can get a better pay elsewhere, go!
i hope in the name of bono that u dun work in hr in any org, local or foreign....
there is an instrinsic and intangible value built over time of an organization's resources, particularly over time that money cannot buy. understanding of the systems, the way things work, shaping of the company's culture, the brand equity build over time, so on and so forth....hence, a common trait of great companies like HP, Google or unilever is staff turnover is typically small.
the training $ and manpower that is invested prior that has to be reinvested to train a new bunch of pple is sometimes just too cumbersome, especially if the turnover is great.
sg will not admit it but if the pilots resigns enmass, sq's entire value proposition to their customers of punctuality, consistent great service and what-have-u will go down the drain. now, think how likely will Sq recover from this mess...maybe they will, maybe they wun, but it sure gonna take a hell of a lot of monies to get the ship back straight up, training, advertising, promos, etc. all in all a hefty exercise with no guarantee of it reaching its glorious `great way to fly' days
that's why in any corporate dispute, the intent is to resolve any difference amicably becos the loss on both sides are innumerable. ideally, both want to come to an amicable solution. the pilots will need to readjust to new working environment, uproot potentially and the airline will struggle with a new set of pple.
the same argument applies for the pple of sinkapore. `not happy with pap, ah? scram to australia lah and die of drought'. this line of thinking will eventually boomerang back and hit sinkapore as well.
good luck to you if you are already in the corporate world. unfortunately, u fall under the dispensable lot....if u persists with this line of thot -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
This government had never accepted market conditions, and will manipulate the various conditions to create a new set of conditions to suit itself. This has been seen in the manner that it intervenes when COE hit the bottom levels, which explains the non-transparency in the COE process - as in the operation of this Government and all its GLCs.
Market forces will decide. There are plenty of airlines around...market forces and competition will determine the most equitable salary package. If the pilots think they can get a better pay elsewhere, go!
Is there such a thing as 'market forces' when dealing with this Singapore Government that respects nothing ?
Market forces were circumvented by simply creating or bending the situation to suit their own objectives.
To circumvent the negotiated agreements with local pilots, SIA had in the past employed foreign pilots with a different set of agreement through a new set foreign set up, and assigned to fly SIA aircrafts.
ALPHA-S had objected to this employment strategy of the SIA management that recruited foreign pilots under different contracts, and operating a different lot of pilots under a lower wage scheme, creating discontent amongst pilots employed under both sets of agreements.
Will the SIA management have dared to make a underhanded deal if they had entered into any labor contract with the NTUC or its affiliated union ? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Unfortunately, not every GLCs offer the same experience that you were fortunate enough to receive.
I would stop short of calling all GLC-linked bosses as 'fatly-paid' mercenaries who devise new costs structures to reduce the wages of the grunts and surbordinates.
Some are indeed ethical, especially from my time in a large GLC.
However, they lack certain examples which promote a long-lost virtue of employees - company loyalty. With the onset of high wages, everyone is looking to improve their salaries. It's a no-brainer. If another company comes in with a better offer, 10 to 1 the employee won't even think twice.
In local Japanese companies that i have worked, during the height of the east asian economic crisis, top management took a 20% pay cut, compared to a 10% for lower level managers and 5% for the average technician. These efforts were made to preserve jobs, citing the mass lay-offs at SIA during this time (pilots included).
As a result of this lesson, the MVC was introduced into the employment contract to ensure no repeats of such poorly handled incidents.
Yet having worked with several mainland Japs, i find that these people have a deep sense of loyalty to whichever company they join, so much so that many of them see themselves working there for life.
Leadership by example seems to be preached very often, but apparently not openly practiced by local govt linked firms.
Some of the GLC heads are - more often than not - political appointees and act as if they are 'little LKYs' governing their own 'little red dots'.
LKY was known to have admired the Japanese Corporate Leadership for taking personal responsibility for the failings of their subordinate and that of its organisation; some of whom willingly step down as a reflection of personal contrition and acceptance of responsibility.
LKY lamented that such a principled philosophy is not part of local culture.
Should we need to wonder why - when it is characteristic of local leadership not practicing what it expect other Singaporeans to do ? -
It is a "Head I win, Tail You Lose" pragmatic system. When Hotel New World collapsed, there will be all the grandiose talks without taking responsibility for negligence in failing to check structures and misalignments of pile caps.Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, not every GLCs offer the same experience that you were fortunate enough to receive.
Some of the GLC heads are - more often than not - political appointees and act as if they are 'little LKYs' governing their own 'little red dots'.
LKY was known to have admired the Japanese Corporate Leadership for taking personal responsibility for the failings of their subordinate and that of its organisation; some of whom willingly step down as a reflection of personal contrition and acceptance of responsibility.
LKY lamented that such a principled philosophy is not part of local culture.
Should we need to wonder why - when it is characteristic of local leadership not practicing what it expect other Singaporeans to do ?
When Nicol Highway collapsed, the contractor would be taken to court without asking his own BCD "Why Hotel New World Inquiry's recommendations to check and approve structures in the collapsed shoring were not being carried out.
This is the type of extraordinary leadership being sold to the world - hypocrisy and justifications. -
oh really, he said that?Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, not every GLCs offer the same experience that you were fortunate enough to receive.
Some of the GLC heads are - more often than not - political appointees and act as if they are 'little LKYs' governing their own 'little red dots'.
LKY was known to have admired the Japanese Corporate Leadership for taking personal responsibility for the failings of their subordinate and that of its organisation; some of whom willingly step down as a reflection of personal contrition and acceptance of responsibility.
LKY lamented that such a principled philosophy is not part of local culture.
Should we need to wonder why - when it is characteristic of local leadership not practicing what it expect other Singaporeans to do ?
I recall a certain Mah Bow Tan vanishing for several days when the MRT derail, not daring to even appear to talk about it
I recall our govt saying something like, because our country is small and our talent limited, we cannot practise what other countries practise, that is, leaders step down to take responsibility, otherwise we will lose our limited talent (a term they give themselves, not the people give to them). -
That's an excuse used by all authoritarian regimes - nothing exclusive to this one in particular.Originally posted by soul_rage:oh really, he said that?
I recall a certain Mah Bow Tan vanishing for several days when the MRT derail, not daring to even appear to talk about it
I recall our govt saying something like, because our country is small and our talent limited, we cannot practise what other countries practise, that is, leaders step down to take responsibility, otherwise we will lose our limited talent (a term they give themselves, not the people give to them). -
we cannot practise what other countries practise, that is, leaders step down to take responsibilityOriginally posted by soul_rage:oh really, he said that?
I recall a certain Mah Bow Tan vanishing for several days when the MRT derail, not daring to even appear to talk about it
I recall our govt saying something like, because our country is small and our talent limited, we cannot practise what other countries practise, that is, leaders step down to take responsibility, otherwise we will lose our limited talent (a term they give themselves, not the people give to them).
Yikes! Isn't this what we have been taught from small? Moral Education and such... to take responsibility for our actions? And I thought it was when old members vacate their positions that new "breath" of life can come into the system... just like management theory - Change Management. With new energies in place, change can take place..... people who stay in their current positions for too long lose touch with ground affairs.
I think our govt has backtracked in this case then, if this was what they said indeed... -
The ex-Chief Minister David Marshall has clearly pointed the danger of rewarding our ministers with more and more monies in 1994.
Was David's Marshall wrong in calling our ministers worshippers of the golden calf in 1994 ?
If our ministers have been less self-centred and heeded his advice would we have lost so many talents?
Now due to the same self-centredness this loss of talents was blamed insufficient pays to our ministers. Is this true or is this only reflecting the same problem David Marshall was referring to - greed or worshipping of the golden calf?
Let us look at our loss of talented people to other countries since 1994. Despite our ministers being paid higher and higher salaries more than what they could possible receive in the private sector through free market competition based on actual interviews and fair assessments of skill, aptitude and experiences and capabilities known to private sector employers, we have during the period lost our best computer graduates to USA Aeronautics and others while our own computer industries like CSM was in a doldrum unable to make good their constant setbacks and having to complain about lack of talents and having to rely on lesser or less desirable talents who came only to learn and understudy with the ulterior motive to take over our citizens' jobs due to cheaper labour in those countries.
So now many years later our government who practised worshipping the golden calf is in despairs over our loss of talents which affected our making headway to compete with the world?
Who was actually responsible and who is the culprit for our brain drain?
But today the same leaders would rather put the blame of insufficient pays for their own ministers and their own elite connections.
Is David Marshall right or wrong on the ministers' pay issue ? If we pay more and more monies to our ministers will we build a fairer and more vibrant society to retain our talents? What is the experience we have learned since 1994?"I've got nothing against money. I'd like to have money myself! I'd like to have a house and a garden and dogs and a car and a chauffeur but, look, I've got a flat. I've got a swimming pool attached to the flat. I've not even got a car but I use taxis. I have a dignified way of life without being wealthy.
I don't see the necessity of owning a Mercedes-Benz and a swimming pool and a couple of mistresses. I think we've got our values all wrong.
You know $96,000 a month for a Prime Minister and $60,000 a month for a minister. What the hell do you do with all that money? You can't eat it! What do you do with it? Your children don't need all that money.
My children have had the best of education. In fact, I'm very proud of them. One of them is a senior registrar to two major hospitals in Oxford. Another of them is a consultant in European law to the Securities and Investment Board in the United Kingdom. They've had their education. There are no complaints.
I never earned $60,000 a month or $90,000 a month. When I was Chief Minister, I earned $8,000 a month. Look, what is happening today is we are encouraged to and are becoming worshippers of the Golden Calf.
We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of the living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people.
We have become good bourgeois seeking comfort, security. It's like seeking a crystal coffin and being fed by intravenous injections through pipes in the crystal coffin; crystal coffins stuck with certificates of your pragmatic abilities."
- the late former Chief Minister of Singapore, David Marshall in 1994 -