[LottiFurmann]

I would call it a difference in expectations.

The employers want no complaints from employees, employees who do things without them saying.. and give their body and soul for the business. However, they fail to realize that employees have their own expectations of the employers and the business as well.

Employers and business owners are very anxious about their business, operations, costs and most importantly, profits. But employees who have no vested interests in the business or company/organisation would feel no urgency at all. To the employees, they exchange their time for the pay they get. And if proper communication is related to the employees about career path and potential growth in the company, then their interests might grow.. but the employers and middle-management (if any) needs to do that.

How can you expect a new employee to work like a dog and give the company body and soul, if you don't tell them what is in store for them? No clear career path nowadays means one can be replaced any time. In fact, even with a career path specified, that still doesn't guarantee job security. Everyone knows that job security is almost non-existent nowadays. So how do you expect employees to give you more than what you had paid them for? Building up loyalty and commitment is the key.. at least this is what I believe.

I once had a job, in my earlier years, as a admin exec. Now.. we all know the term "other duties and responsibilities as and when assigned" to be used in most employment letters when you join the company, right? Well guess what? It doesn't hold any weight in any court until both parties agree to the terms agreed upon. That statement should not be used at all, as it is like a blank cheque for the employers to use and put the employee in a bad light, ie inflexible or avoiding job assignments.

Well, it happened to me, cos when the manager had difficulties hiring a receptionist, he came up to me and told me that I HAD to double up during lunch break to "help out" the reception area. I asked him why can't the clerical staff do it, and he said they take turns, but I HAD to be included in the "shift". I flatly refused and pointed out to him that since I was hired to be an admin exec, it was a level higher than the clerical staff, and by accepting his proposal, it would undermine my authority, as it would put me on the same level as the clerical staff. I asked him, "if I am the same level as the clerical staff, how can I tell them to do things? They would never respect me as a senior staff, but treat me as one of them. Or worse, lower then them!"

It was the start of a sour relationship, and I didn't stay long. Before I left, he did the same thing to another exec, an accounts exec.. and after I left, the accounts exec called me to complain that the "lunch break shift" has become a permanent thing for her. "too bad", I told her, "you accepted it. now you have to live with it." She didn't stay long after our telephone conversation.

My above experience highlights the unprofessional tactics of local higher and middle management.. of how stingy employers and business owners can be and how far they can go to save money, cut costs, just to maximise profits. No wonder alot of expats from First world countries say our managers here can't make it.

And now, the papers and the govt are still focussing on these so-called employers. Do you think the employers will tell the papers theeir actual reasons for hiring foreigners? I doubt it. The employees are not being highlighted properly, making it like THEY are the ones who are INFLEXIBLE. I agree with Tension68 that employers should be prodded on moer details on what they want from their employees when it comes to being flexible and taking on job assignments.. etc etc.