5/02/2007

Application Form - Forms versus Substance

Halimah Yaacob is trying to fight discrimination in the employment scene by doing away with some data in the Application Form. Things like sex, marital status, age, religion or race may be a thing of the past. And photos may also be excluded. By removing such items, employers will be limited to choose the candidates for interviews based on other available data. Technically discrimination can be stopped, at least up to the interview stage. But would it lead to the employment of a candidate after the shocking presence during the interview when what the employer needs are totally mismatched? The real discrimination, if any, is at the hiring. What happened in this case is that many will be called up for interviews but find it a big waste of time, money and effort when one does not meet the employer's expectation. Example if the employer wants a female age 30 and below, probably slim and cute, but the candidate turning up is an old grandfather that weighs 100kg, and the interview has to go on, not to make it too embarrassing for the applicants. Curbing job discrimination can hardly be overcame by a mere change of applicant's biodata.

4 comments:

Kaffein said...

About time there is a law to protect employees in Singapore. But alas, SG is never known for their pro-employees labour law.

So I'd think it will be lots of talk and debate. Then KIV.

Sorry if I sounded pessimistic. More often it's lots of talk but no action if it does not earn govrnmt a single cent.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Actually, I would like to see more discrimination in the free job market from both the employees and the employers.

Employees ought to be more discriminating on choosing who to work for.

Employers ought to be more discriminating in deciding who to hire.

Every relationship is founded on some sort of "agreement" based on trust, and at least some respect for the other party. Therefore the more information, the BETTER.

For e.g., I, as a general rule, don't hire someone who has worked extensively for the govt, because he usually has "the world owes me a living" mentality, and expects respect, big salary and perks as an "entitlement" not something which one has to proves oneself.

I also find that people who come out of the public service are usually *LAZY* compared to their private sector counterparts, habitually dodge responsibility and don not own up readily when they make errors (blame someone else), are not punctual for appointments, and have an over-inflated opinion of self-worth without the empirical evidence to back up their lofty claims. *Caution to the reader*: These are my generalisations based on bitter experience and observation over about 20 years.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "right" to a job, any more than there is such a thing as a "right" to a worker or a "right" which guarantees success in business or in life.

No one owes anyone a living. Unless you work for the govt, then the citizens owe you their souls because of your "selfless' contribution to the nation's prosperity.

(Bollocks)

redbean said...

both employers and employees have been very discriminating all the while. they only compromise their discrimination when their expectations cannot be met or they are not good enough to exercise their rights to discriminate.

Anonymous said...

The employment agencies will be much needed to seive out the good from the bad, thus saving the employers enormous time.