I'm completely at a loss for words after reading todays article the "Govt boosts cleaning sector" ST, Home B3.
Why is the government offering companies $75,000 to not accept the lowest bid in cleaning contracts?
"The grants totalling $2million were announced yesterday by labour chief Lim Swee Say, who said that the target is to raise the proportion of local workers in the cleaning sector to 70%."
This is one of the silliest programmes I have ever seen proposed, and is a waste of government and citizen funds. The $2million fund does not include the cost of administrating such a fund, which can add anything between 20-50% to the costs. The arguments against such a fund are obvious:
a) The government can simply restrict cleaning companies from hiring more than 30% of their staff from other countries. This automatically achieves the target without need for the fund. The obvious counter-argument to this is that it may raise the costs of cleaning services by more than $2million, and therefore the government will then threaten you with the need to raise conservancy charges. This is an emotional distraction. If the market price of cleaning services if we use 70% Singaporeans costs more than $2million above today's prices, then the $2million subsidy will not be enough to allow us to reach that target of 70% Singaporean employees. Therefore, the measure is useless in the first place. It is a circular and contradictory argument.
b) Alternatively the government should call tenders with all the government requirements in there, including the 70% Singaporean workforce composition, let the free market set the price, and pick the lowest bid. The obvious counter argument to this is that the employers will squeeze the local workers pay in order to win the bid. This is another illogical distraction. If you think that local workers will be unfairly squeezed in this process then you should SET A MINIMUM WAGE ($1100 to $1200) for local workers. And you know what? You can even include that in the tender specifications.
This contorted way of going about trying to raise Singaporean employment in the cleaning sector is ineffective and simply doesn't address the root cause of the problem.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Sometimes I wonder if it is worth bothering to ask our Ministers questions. I have to have a supercomputer and a non-deterministic polynomial solution parallel language parser to understand what he is saying. Here is an extract of the proceedings of the last Parliamentary sitting.
____________________________________________________
Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Manpower what are the reasons for the manufacturing sector shedding 4,600 local jobs while adding 24,100 foreign jobs in the year 2008.
Mr Gan Kim Yong:
In 2008, total employment in manufacturing grew by 19,500. The growth came largely in the earlier part of the year. Although some companies had cut their headcount, others were still growing and expanding. Given the tight labour market then with record local employment rate of 77.0%, manufacturing companies which were still growing had to recruit foreign manpower to meet their needs. However, as the economic downturn deepened, both foreign and local employment in manufacturing fell towards the end of the year. Job losses in the manufacturing sector were more than offset by jobs created in other sectors as overall local employment grew by 64,700 in 2008.
The introduction of schemes such as the Jobs Credit and Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) launched in December 2008, have helped companies save jobs for local workers and upgrade their skills during the recession. Workers from manufacturing companies account for nearly half of all trainees committed to SPUR training.
__________________________________________________________
So Mr. Minister, to summarise, when times are good we hire foreigners. When times are bad we retrench both foreigners and Singaporeans. Therefore, the proposition by the government that foreigners serve as a buffer during difficult economic times is false?
Would anyone have a follow-up question for the Minister?
____________________________________________________
Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Manpower what are the reasons for the manufacturing sector shedding 4,600 local jobs while adding 24,100 foreign jobs in the year 2008.
Mr Gan Kim Yong:
In 2008, total employment in manufacturing grew by 19,500. The growth came largely in the earlier part of the year. Although some companies had cut their headcount, others were still growing and expanding. Given the tight labour market then with record local employment rate of 77.0%, manufacturing companies which were still growing had to recruit foreign manpower to meet their needs. However, as the economic downturn deepened, both foreign and local employment in manufacturing fell towards the end of the year. Job losses in the manufacturing sector were more than offset by jobs created in other sectors as overall local employment grew by 64,700 in 2008.
The introduction of schemes such as the Jobs Credit and Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) launched in December 2008, have helped companies save jobs for local workers and upgrade their skills during the recession. Workers from manufacturing companies account for nearly half of all trainees committed to SPUR training.
__________________________________________________________
So Mr. Minister, to summarise, when times are good we hire foreigners. When times are bad we retrench both foreigners and Singaporeans. Therefore, the proposition by the government that foreigners serve as a buffer during difficult economic times is false?
Would anyone have a follow-up question for the Minister?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)