Tripartite Juggling Policies
(Policies = Expectations)
This blog is about the influence of the tripartite policies on labour, wages and talent strategy of Singapore are being developed. I use the analysis of the macro scale of subjective matters ( in this case labour policies creation by tripartite as they influence businesses and employment ) to the perspective of the micro scale of HR strategy in organizations.
How my analysis are formed.
I am looking at equation of policies that undertakes or moves the massive structure of gears that combines and form a working unit or dysfunctional system (in which it may be efficient but not effective) of labour and business. I am looking at the parties as juggling balls to see the components where it can be successful and where it can be troublesome or problematic. I use the analogy of the inverted U.
To understand the perspective of policies being made we have to understand the equation or analogy from the inverted U perspectives. Having too much of good may not be good at a certain level or point as shown in the diagram.
Thus we have policies made for business and then counter policies made for labour in the macro perspectives that influences the micro perspectives of recruitment and human resource, in accordance to economic climatic change.
The shift or counter shift of policies I see it as a juggling process in the tripartite negotiation and policies change. I will call it juggling policies.
How my analysis are formed.
I am looking at equation of policies that undertakes or moves the massive structure of gears that combines and form a working unit or dysfunctional system (in which it may be efficient but not effective) of labour and business. I am looking at the parties as juggling balls to see the components where it can be successful and where it can be troublesome or problematic. I use the analogy of the inverted U.
To understand the perspective of policies being made we have to understand the equation or analogy from the inverted U perspectives. Having too much of good may not be good at a certain level or point as shown in the diagram.
Thus we have policies made for business and then counter policies made for labour in the macro perspectives that influences the micro perspectives of recruitment and human resource, in accordance to economic climatic change.
The shift or counter shift of policies I see it as a juggling process in the tripartite negotiation and policies change. I will call it juggling policies.
Juggling Policies
The idea of tripartite is often associated with corporate, compromise and collaboration. In the Singapore context tripartism consitutes of three parties that are (as per MOM website http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/tripartism-in-singapore/Pages/default.aspx ), Ministry of Manpower, NTUC and SNEF.
In many ways they (the parties) may be different elements to the perspectives of a component in the equation but are all the same in the form of the main objectives and agenda of policies that juggles these elements like those balls in the picture above.
Thus the creation of tripartism guidelines (guidelines as in control) which in the example is like a ball juggling DVD which are practices to perform or guide, for the attributes of corporation, compromise and collaboration within the tripartite. Which works well depending on the agenda, objectives, priorities and focus of the interest group or groups.
In many ways they (the parties) may be different elements to the perspectives of a component in the equation but are all the same in the form of the main objectives and agenda of policies that juggles these elements like those balls in the picture above.
Thus the creation of tripartism guidelines (guidelines as in control) which in the example is like a ball juggling DVD which are practices to perform or guide, for the attributes of corporation, compromise and collaboration within the tripartite. Which works well depending on the agenda, objectives, priorities and focus of the interest group or groups.
And within the alliances there are other Tricoms (or sub-parties to handle individual policies) such as NWC, TAFEP, and so on. These are the smaller balls added or embedded to the three main balls.
Presently there have been two more balls (offshoots from the larger balls) as the trust towards those three main elements decreased. The two new balls that are or may be in friction for discontent are employers/ owners/ shareholders and employees (wanting more say in the structure of labour such as foreign talent or wage structure). It was a gradual break away as the juggler, moved policies from one side of an extreme scale to another. Sort of a Jeklle and Hyde policy making attributes that favours one time to a particular ball and another to the other ball.
Presently there have been two more balls (offshoots from the larger balls) as the trust towards those three main elements decreased. The two new balls that are or may be in friction for discontent are employers/ owners/ shareholders and employees (wanting more say in the structure of labour such as foreign talent or wage structure). It was a gradual break away as the juggler, moved policies from one side of an extreme scale to another. Sort of a Jeklle and Hyde policy making attributes that favours one time to a particular ball and another to the other ball.
The discontentment towards the three balls may be (as in my perception or analysis) was due to that of the creation of policies to one extreme hoping or in their own expectation believing that the elements in the equation would pull the other extremes to the middle and balance on its own naturally. That was not the case as they needed to have other policies (not mandatory) to balance the equation in the inverted U. Thus having discontentment in terms of foreign talent policies, benefits, wages and so on.
Therefore they had policies base on CPF percentage cut for older workers and age group including status in terms of PRs etc (mandatory although discriminating with a reason that the discriminated will benefit in the long run) and grants to balance off that by having IPG and WorkPro to benefit and increase older workers value. As policies such as these are being created and the juggling of balls and their expectations (which also includes the tripartite interest as well), wage disparity and policies that are inconsistent discontentment arise. Discontentment or a psychological effect can be also shown in a way on a inverted U.
Are there three balls or just two in the tripartite?
Having said that I am still contemplating the notion as to who are the price takers and price givers? Or who juggles these balls? Who made those tripartite guidelines? Who controls those gears? If there are three balls as we all know or are there power moguls or one party that is stronger for decision making?
In another equation there could be only two balls. SNEF (employees) and NTUC (employers), while the MOM plays as the middle component and decision makers. Or is there another element that is a invisible control mechanism for juggling all three balls?
Since I would not be able to find out, I will assume that these balls are juggled by policies. How do I define policies? Expection? Interest? Needs? Wants? We could bring on the theories of Vroom, Herzberg, Maslow or Alderfer.Expectations define policy making.
More than just three balls
Having said that the balls are juggled by policies, and as I have considered that policies are expectations that have created many other balls such as the unexpected discontented balls of employees and owners / shareholders, there lies due to policies (expectations) new balls with larger expectations.
They are foreign talents, unskilled workers or labourers, ordinary residents, new citizens, EPs, SPs, WPs, further division within local employment such as young workforce, older workforce, unemployed and so on.
They are foreign talents, unskilled workers or labourers, ordinary residents, new citizens, EPs, SPs, WPs, further division within local employment such as young workforce, older workforce, unemployed and so on.
As new balls formed, new expectations formed, new policies were formed and needed. Change was not only rapid but was fast and furious too. As more and more balls appeared, it become difficult to juggle. As expectations increase and were embedded to the tripartite core balls, it became heavier to juggle.
What seriously happen in the labour strategy/policies was that it tried to focus on the expectation of one or many of issues creating many other entity (in our case balls) in the process. The three core elements that called itself tripartite were unable to coordinate, cooperate, collaborate policies to satisfy the many elements that were not in line with tripartism and became entities itself. With that the environment, not experience of in the modern living standards saw strikes, riots and cracks of discontentment that began to see a whole new dynamism.
The juggling process slowed down or weighted down as policies focus on efficient means instead of being effective. Policies were lump together to make it efficient and easier for control. Talent acquisition had a new definition that moved from exceptional foreign talent to acceptable talent with ease to please one or many of the balls thus creating other balls that featured strikes and some ways even riots ( although it was blamed on other exponent ).
Policies would have to juggle many balls. It will not be sustainable if policies are made in one size fits all or discriminating effects as it would affect and create further chaotic expectations in the long run. Change have to come in the way policies are made. It must not be made by juggling for the time of need and wants in a short run.
We must also understand that there are no good or bad ways to make policies. Having said that, we must also understand that there are better ways in making policies and not base on time and need in accordance to the business or economic climatic change in an environment or for an extreme cause.
The juggling process slowed down or weighted down as policies focus on efficient means instead of being effective. Policies were lump together to make it efficient and easier for control. Talent acquisition had a new definition that moved from exceptional foreign talent to acceptable talent with ease to please one or many of the balls thus creating other balls that featured strikes and some ways even riots ( although it was blamed on other exponent ).
Policies would have to juggle many balls. It will not be sustainable if policies are made in one size fits all or discriminating effects as it would affect and create further chaotic expectations in the long run. Change have to come in the way policies are made. It must not be made by juggling for the time of need and wants in a short run.
We must also understand that there are no good or bad ways to make policies. Having said that, we must also understand that there are better ways in making policies and not base on time and need in accordance to the business or economic climatic change in an environment or for an extreme cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment