Sometimes I wonder why do people frown at job hoppers. I understand for employers they would face manpower resource planning problems if the job hoppers decide to move on after working for less than a year or two. Also for employers, they have "invested" a lot on these employees where they provided on the job training which made them more marketable.
But let us not kid ourselves. If an employee's goals are not aligned with the employer's, would any party be happy when the employee eventually fails to perform up to mark? Afterall, employees are also human beings. They too would not be pleased with mere words of praise followed by hollowed excuses of why they don't get the increment, promotion and/or bonus.
Now consider contract workers. Why do companies have less expectation on these people? Why do they resign to the fact that eventually these contract workers can come and go? Are they less efficient in the work? I personally felt that the only reason why employers are vary about hiring contract workers is because both has to sit on the negotiation table as equal party where any variation in work result in variation order. The same cannot be said of permanent employees. They are there to take orders. Even the Employment Act, if you read it carefully, has a tone similar to deeming employees as servants. Hmm...
Also, don't CEOs of multinational companies usually work for a few years and then they move on? Why don't anyone complain about the resource planning issue when these people decides to hop jobs?
So now we read about a certain Gerakan rising star, Lee Kah Choon, working for Pakatan Rakyat led Penang state government. He has been viewed with suspicion. Perhaps it is due to the fact that he is seen as moonlighting i.e. working on another job when he already has one to begin with. But honestly, this guy resigned from all party position. He is only an ordinary member. And if he can work and serve the rakyat, does it matter which party he is from?
Similarly, if Mr Big Ears manage to transfrom himself from being known as Father-In-Law and Father of Corridors (he has 5 versus Mahathir's MSC) to Father of Commissions (for judiciary reforms, read here and here; for ACA reforms, read here and here) and perhaps when he actually gets round to create meaningful, effective and independent commissions, Father of Real Reformation, why should not allow him to continue serving as our PM?
But let us not kid ourselves. If an employee's goals are not aligned with the employer's, would any party be happy when the employee eventually fails to perform up to mark? Afterall, employees are also human beings. They too would not be pleased with mere words of praise followed by hollowed excuses of why they don't get the increment, promotion and/or bonus.
Now consider contract workers. Why do companies have less expectation on these people? Why do they resign to the fact that eventually these contract workers can come and go? Are they less efficient in the work? I personally felt that the only reason why employers are vary about hiring contract workers is because both has to sit on the negotiation table as equal party where any variation in work result in variation order. The same cannot be said of permanent employees. They are there to take orders. Even the Employment Act, if you read it carefully, has a tone similar to deeming employees as servants. Hmm...
Also, don't CEOs of multinational companies usually work for a few years and then they move on? Why don't anyone complain about the resource planning issue when these people decides to hop jobs?
So now we read about a certain Gerakan rising star, Lee Kah Choon, working for Pakatan Rakyat led Penang state government. He has been viewed with suspicion. Perhaps it is due to the fact that he is seen as moonlighting i.e. working on another job when he already has one to begin with. But honestly, this guy resigned from all party position. He is only an ordinary member. And if he can work and serve the rakyat, does it matter which party he is from?
Similarly, if Mr Big Ears manage to transfrom himself from being known as Father-In-Law and Father of Corridors (he has 5 versus Mahathir's MSC) to Father of Commissions (for judiciary reforms, read here and here; for ACA reforms, read here and here) and perhaps when he actually gets round to create meaningful, effective and independent commissions, Father of Real Reformation, why should not allow him to continue serving as our PM?
4 comments:
Whatever reasons Kah Choon has, I get the impression that he just wants to move on. He has accepted responsibility for the failure of Gerakan in Penang and has resigned from all party posts. So he is now just an ordinary member and an ordinary man like anyone of us. Life goes on and he sees a niche where he can contribute to nation-building and he takes it in goog faith when he is offered.
Can all the politican be as magnanimous as him? He knows the precarious position he is in, possibly being suspected of his loyalty by both sides. And yet he takes the challenge. Lim Keng yaik should stop being so condescending and pity everyone else but himself. Let Kah Choon do the good work he has set out to do.
Dear bayi,
Agreed with you.
The nation was divided on 8th of March. Yet, it was for only 1 day. It is now time for everyone to work to unite and get things done. If there are capable people, why can't they work for the good of the nation?
i was actually on a different notion until i saw lee kah choon's name being mentioned :)....
well, my view on the corporate world would be.... if you think it's time to go... it's time to go... i guess it's the same with politics.
Dear Zewt,
haha... it is easier for Mr Lee since he is being headhunted for a top position.
There is still job security right for the next 4-5 years?
Post a Comment