Tar mee/prawn mee

Serangoon Central here I come...Read more

Saturday, 30 April 2016

Underlying reasons known only to cc management and LG for not extending retirement

A few days ago, I blogged about IFS Lau Goh (LG) who seemingly had a heart attack because he was not given an extension to work for another 2 more years. He was supposed to retire on the day after his heart attack.
In SIA, an IFS officially retires at age 60 but would be allowed to carry on working for another 2 years if the cabin crew management think his work performance is good. So if an IFS is not allowed to extend his retirement, it is one way of telling him that he has not been a productive or good worker.
To Lau Goh, I think the non-recognition by SIA for his loyal service and good work for 30 plus years is more hurting than his desire for the job itself.
From what I was told, LG scored an average of 89% in his annual appraisal. On average he has taken no more than 5 days of medical leave per year. On these two criterion alone, one would assumed that LG is an above average IFS. Then the question here and to LG is why wasn't his retirement be extended?
There must be some underlying reasons known only to LG and cc management as to why he has to go at 60.
However, it is comforting for us to know that SIA is willing to pay up to $50,000 for LG's medical fees. It is a goodwill gesture because SIA is not obliged to pay for LG's medical for he is no longer an employee of SIA. Also, LG is given the gratuity of $50,000 for retiring at age 60.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Medical leave per year is a standard criteria to measure an employee's productivity.
It is also referred to for promotions, disciplinary issues.
Its punitive. Fall sick ( flu, cough, sore eyes, dental extractions..etc )
and its on your account.

Appraisal scores for a particular job function is usually high if one is appraised by someone within the same department. To score below average suggests relationship issues with the appraiser, or it could mean you are really f_ _ked up.

There were instances where employees did not submit any medical leave for 15 years.
That does not mean they were super healthy. They turned up for work despite being ill.
Is the criteria logical? Does it suggest that the employees is highly responsible or dedicated to the work?

There are many other criteria which the management does not reveal and the labour representatives are aware of it. Horse trading is part & parcel of life.
Lau goh was traded.

Employees should plan their departure. Being told to go or not being extended means you do not have control over your life. Rosters are pushed on you, pay decrease/increase is not determined by you... take some control over your life.. at least your departure.

You voluntarily applied for the job, you should voluntarily leave too.
Take control... do not leave it to chance.

Anonymous said...

Evening Bohtong,

I heard from an CS whose IFS's wife works in STC (G5 Sup) who hear from someone else that IFS LG did not clear his medical check and was not medically fit to continue flying.

Don't know if it has any truth since there is so many degrees of separation lol. You should guess who the wife is. Gossip queen who always act like she is the queen on the flight when she was LSS, asking FSS to do her responsibilities while she hide at galley jumpseat or chitchat with pax just because her hubby was already IFS then.

Insider said...

Medical condition is NOT a prerequisite for retirement extension. I was told he often bad-mouth SQ and discouraged his crew from working hard. Also I was told he did not report an incident of molest by a passenger on his stewardess to the office. The stewardess's father made an issue of the molest. These two issues resulted in LG's retirement not being extended.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, bad mouthing & not encouraging subordinates to work "hard".
Qualitative or Quantitative assessments?

98.9% appraisal score is not as worthy as
" I heard he tells the crew to perform minimal.."

So, people... wayang is far better than actually working.

Anonymous said...

Why does SIA want crew to work even if they are unwell? Imagine being served by someone with a sniffy nose or voice choked with phlegm or bouts of coughing. It is disgusting

HR guru... said...

SIA does not encourage crew to work if they are unwell.

B U T.....

... they monitor the number of medical certificates that has been submitted.
They speak to staff who have submitted more than 5 medical certificates in a 3 month period. They express concern about your health. They express concern about how your absence affects other staff who have to fill your duties.

They are very "concerned". Their expressions of concern is overwhelming.
Mind you... they are all expressions via letter, email, phone calls and face to face interviews, chit-chats.

What they do not express is that your absence affects a very important component in the division's KPI... Productivity.. ( man-hours flown per month/quarter/annually )
Productivity can be measured in a manufacturing scenario, quiet accurately

But for flight attendants, its not measured by how many cups of coffee/tea being served within 30mins. Its measured by proxy. That means hours flown.
Crew has zero value. Crew is a cost.

From recruitment, to training, to hotel rooms, taxis, buses, uniforms, salaries, allowances, dental, doctors, insurance, free travel tickets. How else to measure productivity?

If not by the grace of management, crew can fly to PER & back again all in 1 day.
No breech in employment act, and its fantastic productivity!

Anonymous said...

Even those with low or no MC have not been considered for extension.

Anonymous said...

There are kay-poh people providing feedback to management via many channels.
Idle gossips during tea break at STC while attending recurrent SEP training or
loitering around canteen.

They are unwitting spies.
All free service to managers.. as an additional data source
to evaluate for extensions, promotions, terminations.

Of course there is no evidence of such activities... unless some disgruntled management
grade person spills the beans... it would be disastrous.