StartThinking! Episode 1: One year is not enough, Don’t you think?

Posted by on Nov 21, 2011 in Uncategorized | Comments Off

StartThinking! series is a set of articles written by our team and based on our experiences of more than 7 years on the local labour market. We would like to tackle issues in Human Resources, recruitment and executive search that we face from our day to day work with professionals whether they are job seekers or potential employers.

We want to discuss all matters related to the process of Recruitment from legislation, Thai Labour Law, local practices, hurdles or superlatives and the human focal point as well. I would like to invite everyone to join us in the debate and add their voice to the conversation.

Start is an equal opportunity employer and it is not our intention to convey any views that are discriminatory. Our views are based on the global character of business with respect to local variations and customs. Some of our deductions might touch a nerve here and there as they are connected to a general status of the market and its realities, however talking and sharing these issues out in the open is the only way to move forward.

StartThinking!

Episode 1: One year is not enough, Don’t you think?

 

Many businesses in Thailand are suffering from a very serious problem: job-hopping. This practice compared to other countries in the region is startling, however the main issue here is not the employees who are trying to increase their financial packages as quick as possible without real justification but the companies who – are in dire need for new team members – end up “settling” for what’s on offer rather than being tough enough and taking the recruitment process to the end.

 

There are of course exceptions to the rules, with professional companies who have a set of recruitment processes that can weed out those who are less than serious, but it is getting increasingly difficult as the general consensus in the Thai labour market is: “Get more positions and you will get more experience!” and instead of the workforce having to respect the general rules of the game, companies are increasingly pushed to a corner, where they need to make choices from limited options.

 

We end up with an army of underdeveloped workforce staying in their respective jobs for 1 or maximum 1.5 years on average and then moving on with the illusion that they learned enough and ready for the next step – in a more senior role of course. We as an executive search company are being called upon for help for many reasons, but one of them is from clients who are desperately looking for certain personality attributes in their new addition to the team. Apart from the most important, which is the skill set, these new employees need to show a basic outlook of what they want to do in a couple of years, a plan that could insinuate whether this is another no-go or an ambitious employee wanting to learn and develop. Or to put it simple terms: Loyalty.

 

There is a combination of reasons why job-hopping is semi accepted and not penalized hard enough to force some to rethink their actions. I am not proposing a system that would force some at their current employment if the situation is unfair, however a skilled professional never worries as “I” as an employer am the one sweating trying to retain this skill in my team by various benefits.

 

The labour market in Thailand in 2011 creates a general atmosphere giving almost an acceptance to frequent job changes, leading many into blatant disrespect and disregard for competition clauses, levae notice, etc. The fact that the local judicial system is quite strained, slow and costly makes anyone think twice before suing someone as even if I am being sued, I still have to pay for my attorney’s bills even if I win the case. How many managers have faced an employee who “just” decided to leave effective immediately without a valid reason – usually after the salary payment – even if there is a signed contract stating a 1-2 months’ notice? Protection of labour is a very tricky issue, however over protection as stands today causes more harm than good. I wonder what would be the reaction of the authorities if the employee was let go with no regards to official notice? Two very similar action with very difference reactions and outcomes.

 

The last global economic crisis and slow down was painfull to so many companies and all of a sudden – even in Thailand – job hopping and frequent changes almost ceased. There was a sense of fear and many decided to remain at their current employment regardless of any potential offers. This was a rare glimpse of what could be on the local market. Many discovered the appreciation of their respective employers plus the silver lining in gaining much more indepth knowledge and experience. Sadly some forgot easily and the amount of professionals who “shop around” is as high as before the crisis.

 

What would I consider more serious is the lack of any system of control in connection to moving jobs. This makes leaving work more than easy and no thought of consequences with a flagrant disrespect for official leave notice. As a future employer I feel in a disadvantage as I have no way of knowing the whole truth about the candidate’s last change(s). The standard “reference check” is not a potent weapon in our arsenal due to the specificities of the local culture, setting a merit to being “polite” rather than directly naming the details of a conflict.

 

A great watchdog would be “An Employment Record Sheet” as I have from my home country (Czech Republic). This sheet is a simple history record of my employment that goes with me from the beginning of my career and closed upon going into retirement. As an employee I cannot edit, omit or handle this document at all. Usually it is the legal responsibility of the employer to fill in the details and send it to the “new” employer with all details checked by the labour office for correctness and validity. The sheet simply states the exact dates where the employee entered employment and the exact day of departure, taxes paid as well as total salaries pre/post tax and most important, reason of leaving. In order to protect confidential data, this part is set in codes, but they are more than revealing!

 

So the reason for leaving ends up as a 2 number code set by law. These codes tell me that the termination of the contract was an agreement between the employer and employee to end employment in probation period, after probation period, redundancy, employee quit for regular reasons or for serious reasons and the most scary “number” of all is being fired for gross misconduct.

 

This is a very strong lever as those who have caused damage or are being fired for a serious reason will have the ominous “code” in their sheet and it would be difficult to proceed in their professional career path without taking full responsibility for their actions. They will as well be less able to hide any “alterations” in the resume with info like periods of no work or exact period of employment. So you can’t just change and on the way ask for 40% higher salary as we see frequently in Thailand.

 

I do wonder if something like this would be considered in Thailand, but I would be more than supportive of such a history sheet. One thing is to try and convince you as a working professional, that one year is not sufficient to learn anything in depth and it takes a min of 3 years to be considered a semi professional in a certain sector and then go from there to a more senior role. We need to watch the personality profile though as well in terms of responsibility and teach the new generation that you cannot just get up and leave without discussing the probles at hand and negotiate a middle ground trying to solve the situation. Endurance and strength of character is needs to be cultivated as it is not always given, however how can I blame the new generation of doing the same things that more senior managers do on a regular basis?

 

Stick with you your employer a bit longer and you will see the rewards…

 

Believe me, One year is not enough!

 

StartTEAM

 

Read More