http://www.transitioning.org/2012/04/22/boycott-f-b-outlets-that-hire-more-than-80-of-foreigners-in-month-of-may/
Many people know that Gilbert Goh from the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has launched a attack against many F&B establishments. But apparently he did not check the facts.
This is a statement by Han's Cafe.
Dear Mr xxx
The statement is not true , we have close to 60% is local. 40% is matured and elderly staff and 13% or 60 staff is PWDs .
MOM is controlling the quotas, how can we recruited more than 40% foreigner.
FYI thanks
What do you have to say now Gilbert?
It is also unknown whether Gilbert has affiliations to Kopi Roti or Ya Kun whom he promotes.
UPDATE! Reply from Hans and BreakTalk!
Dear Sir
Thank you for trust and supporting Han's.
Our MD, Mr Han has informed us do not reply to his statement and make issues complicated as Han's is well know strong support and open recruited and retained of elderly local worker; in additional open door to disabled workers. This is not a first time the unfair statement created by him.
We rather spent our times and efforts to help more unfortunate peoples rather than empty talk and create unhappiness.
Thanks again and you are not a first customer calls or write to us on this matters.
Dear Mr xxx
Please read our website
www.hans.com.sg to see hans movement over the years
Tripartite team members has came down for audit and award Hans as finalist of exemplary employer for 2012 as well as enabling employer award for 2011 and 2012.
MOM just conducted worker ability survey to all of our staff in Hans recently due to our retention of high % of elderly. Most of elderly workers are work in CDB outlets and back end operation just they do not wish to facing front line customers
Mr Han is humble , simple with big hearts local boss and very caring of us.
Don't worry, time can tell the truth and customer has bright eyes to see our effort and work from big hearts
Reply from Breadtalk:
Dear Mr Tan,
Thank you for your feedback. As a company with Singaporean roots, we are extremely appreciative of the support that Singaporeans have given us over the years. Because of our local success, we have been able to fast-track our development into the rest ofAsia and now enjoy a strong presence in many Asian cities. In Singapore, our foreign staff to Singaporean staff ratio falls well within stipulated guidelines set by the Ministry of Manpower, and we work closely with the MOM to ensure adherence as such.
Every year, the Group enjoys a business growth of 20% to 25%, and our expansion needs require a strong workforce to aid our expansion. We believe in channelling our resources back into benefitting our staff via opportunities for skills upgrading and overseaswork stints. Foreign staff who are trained in Singapore may have the opportunity to work with our overseas offices after completing their stint in Singapore. Similarly, Singaporean staff are also groomed for overseas work opportunities within the group.
As a Singapore-based company growing its business in Asia, we are proud of our local heritage, and keenly aware of our corporate civic responsibility to avail ample job opportunities to Singaporeans first and foremost. We will continue to work closelywith the relevant authorities to uphold our corporate philosophy.
Please feel free to contact me if you need further assistance.
Thank you and regards,
From xxx
For two years, my job was to determine who screwed up, how bad was the screw up and what punishment to mete out. I suspect that v few people would have punished/fired as many people in their lives as I had in just two years. The only ones who can come close are probably the magistrates and district judges.
Other than "vicarous liability", what ELSE do you know about law? Do you understand the principles of natural justice and double jeopardy? Let it be know that there is a very formal and strict system of disciplinary in the Civil Service. There are rules, regulations and principles governing the issue of culpability.
To understand culpability, you first have to understand that each officer in the Civil Service has his job/responsibility. The supervisor(s) has the responsibility to make sure that the job gets done. This is actually quite common sense, but let me just lay out the basics.
Obviously, what we end up with is a hierarchy. So the natural question is: suppose a person A screws up, at what level do the buck stop??
To digress, imagine that some Walmart cashier is negligent and leaves money unattended and thereby stolen, do we fire the CEO because he is "vicarously responsible"? If you think about it, you will realize that it doesn't seem to make sense. But how do we explain this? Well, it turns out, the only reasonable way to decide where the buck should stop is to ask one simple question: "who could reasonably have been expected to be able to prevent the mistake from happening, but DIDN'T?"
Now back to the story of Mas Selamat, the only one who could reasonably have expected to have detected and prevented the problem was the person in charge of the detention center, i.e. the superintendent. Actually, even before the final decision was made, it was quite clear to me based on the facts of the case that the superintendent was going to get the axe and I was right. The trouble with the Mas Selamat case is that it was quite a GRIEVOUS breach. It's not a policy mistake. Basically there was complacency and non-compliance of lawful order on the ground. WKS is many levels above the superintendent and really cannot be help responsible. He is however responsible for dealing with the problem after it occurred.
There is no need for you to agree or accept what I say. I am merely telling you in no uncertain terms that there are principles and processes with which to deal with disciplinary problems and Mas Selamat's case while sensational, isn't entirely extraordinary or exceptional in terms of the administration of discipline.