ThinkingNectar

resilience package

The Jobs Credit Scheme was discussed by the MPs and some did question the effectiveness of the Scheme. The scheme intention and purpose is good, as voiced by most. I have reservations on the implementation.

Thinking from a business point of view, most business owners will welcome the scheme. It offers some help, little it migh be, to tide over difficult times. And that was the view offered by several MPs.

Now, thinking from a jobs holder point of view, (it is Jobs credit after all), the implemetation of the scheme may not come across as that attractive.

For a company in the verge of retrenching, the scheme will offer some lifeline. How much nobody can offer concrete number. For a profitable company, the scheme will offer extra cash to the company, with no guaranty that the job holder will benefit from scheme. Will the company offer the money as bonus at the end of the year?

Or will the money from the scheme enters some top executive pocket as bonus?

Maybe the alternative implementation is to give the job holder the money directly, instead of channeling via their employer. For example, some one who earn $2500 per month will get $900 at the end of each 3 months stated period. And the employers be notified of this. Should the employer face hardship in cash flow to keep the company afloat, the company can, with a ease of mind, cut the pay of the employee by $300.

It the company is profitable, then it will have no good reason to cut the pay of the employee who receive the job credit payout. Yes, some might say why does employee who face no risk of retrenchment be given the money? It is the same as asking why companies that face no risk of hardship be given the money too?

This implementation will make sure that the money reaches the people instead of dropping into some corporate blackhole.  It might not be the best implementation. It just defines the line between a job giver credit scheme vs a job holder credit scheme.