Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Not any of the earlier posters but I agree with this.
There is certainly a case that government funds are used to support elderly and whatnot. I am also all for supporting colleagues during maternity or parental leave.
But the OP gripe was the perceived unfairness in distribution of workload from female officers who went on long leave after joining and apparently more than once. The response did not clearly link how the present unfairness will be mitigated by the anticipated future benefit.
I personally do not think that most senior ADs and DDs with annual pay package exceeding $100k will, in retirement, fall into the class of elderly who stand to benefit most from government subsidies.
Much has also been said on adequacy of early financial planning, including building up own CPF for own retirement. So I find it hard to jibe with the argument that it is fair for colleagues to bear a heavier workload in anticipation of being supported by their colleagues kids in their old age. I do think however that in such situations manpower needs would probably be addressed by hiring replacements on fixed term contracts? |
The most straightforward solution to me is for
MAS to put its money where its mouth is.
We all know that the government reimburses even private companies for maternity leave.
If colleagues have to do additional work because of maternity cover,
MAS should rightly give the covering colleagues additional cash during the period of maternity cover using the monies reimbursed by the government.
This is fair since
MAS does not usually hire temp staff, and I can understand that it may not be practicable to hire temp staff for only 6 months because it doesn't work well for some functions where even temp staff would need considerable time to get up to speed.