More complaints of unfair dismissals

SINGAPORE: There was a spike in the number of complaints to the authorities about unfair dismissals last year – particularly from pregnant women and executives.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received 56 complaints involving pregnant employees, up from 26 cases in 2008 and 16 in 2007. Twelve of last year’s cases involved pregnant executives, up from just one the year before.

Minister Gan Kim Yong attributed the increase to various factors “including greater awareness of maternity protection” after the heightened publicity and enhancement of maternity leave benefits.

In all, 149 complaints of unfair dismissal were lodged, up from 101 the previous year and 118 in 2007, Mr Gan revealed in a written response to a question from Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah.

Under the Employment Act, employees who feel they have been unfairly dismissed can appeal to MOM.

Most cases were mediated and “amicably resolved”, sometimes with a settlement payment, said Mr Gan. But 3 per cent of cases were found to be dismissals without just cause, and the companies had to compensate the employee.

As for executives, those dismissed on grounds related to pregnancy can appeal to MOM. For non-pregnancy related disputes, the Ministry provides mediation; about 270 executives seek its help each year.

“Close to half of such disputes were resolved amicably. The rest of the cases were withdrawn, or the employee sought settlement with their employer directly or through the civil courts, after consultation with the Ministry,” said Mr Gan.

With the executive ranks in the workforce swelling, MOM recently announced plans for a dispute resolution process to help junior- and mid-level professionals, managers and executives resolve common employment tiffs. – TODAY/sc

Fancy job titles can raise workers’ morale

[Source: mypaper, 21 Dec 2009]

I REFER to Mr Jeffrey Law Lee Beng’s letter, “Dump fancy, meaningless job titles” (my paper, Dec 18).

It has long been acknowledged that many Singaporeans shun certain jobs because of poor pay, drudgery and lowly status.

Many who hold such jobs would not be keen to share their designations with friends and family, as they bear negative connotations.

While a fixation on status has led to an increase in the number of fancy job titles, such as “sanitation officer” for toilet cleaners and “customer- service executive” for sales staff in shops, there is really no harm in conferring such titles on employee

As Mr Law admitted, such designations could instil a sense of dignity in workers and spur them to provide better service.

After all, if such titles could alter employees’ mindsets, they would perform better than if they had no pride in their jobs.

And using fancy titles, though a small gesture, is a painless effort that could reap significant dividends if Singaporeans become more accepting of such jobs and do them well.

The salaries for such positions are low and there are few rewards and benefits.

Let us not begrudge those who take them up their fancy titles.

MR ADAM LEO ISIDORE TAN

Prejudice and bias.

What would you think of such a person: girl born to an unwed mother who’s a high school dropout, and growing up in one of the poorest rural neighbourhoods in the United States who later becomes pregnant at 14 after being raped, and having to endure other episodes of sexual abuse? Later on, she would face strong resistance and challenges in her career because of her looks and build, and succumbs to bouts of depression and substance abuse?

Surely you wouldn’t think or even believe such a person would ever have what we would call “a bright future”; fewer of us would have guessed right away that the person in question is one of America’s most influential African-American celebrities named Oprah Winfrey.

Some of us may ask who are we to judge, especially since none of us is perfect; prejudices and bias abound in the world we live in, and it’s not even a question of right or wrong—at one point or another, all of us are guilty of prejudice and bias—question we should be asking ourselves is more a case of how our prejudices would adversely affect that someone else we encounter or make a victim of.

What if our prejudice and bias have led directly or indirectly to someone either losing their jobs, or is being denied or deprived of an opportunity to seek employment?

Our biasness may extend beyond the cases of people with criminal records or have physical disabilities—anyone of us could potentially fall prey to discrimination or prejudice at the work place.

It’s easy for companies to wear a tagline that says “equal opportunity employer”—how many actually live up to that tag?

Here in Singapore, we have certain structures, legal statutes and tri-partite agreements that are designed to remove the elements of bias and discrimination and to ensure fair employment opportunities. Even so, it would be naïve to think such structures, rules and laws necessarily mean everyone and anyone who applies for jobs will be treated fairly—hiring managers and employers have their hiring preferences, and many don’t even relate to the job descriptions and hiring criteria already stated.

Let’s take a moment to think this through, and be honest: if you were an employer, and a candidate applies to an opening you have who has the right education qualifications or is sufficiently experienced, BUT is of a minority race or a particular nationality, has a juvenile criminal record, is an unwed single mother, or has a physical disability that renders certain inconveniences at the workplace, would you even think of granting that person a first interview?