Giving longer notice to retiring employees seems reasonable from the employee's point of view. But is it necessary? If a company does not prepare retiring candidates for other assignments during their final year of service, it is a clear signal that the company intends to move on without them. No employer would release an experienced retiree if his service was still relevant to and required by the company.

It is unreasonable to require employers to say why a service contract is terminated if terms are fulfilled right to the end. On the flipside, should a retiring employee have to say why he wants to leave when his company wants to retain him? When the tenure ends, it ends. Period.

It is unfair to thrust responsibility on employers to force payment for retraining expenses for retrenched workers or retirees if they cannot offer alternative employment. It is a parody of guaranteed lifelong employment benefits even the Government cannot afford.

What if employees still cannot find employment after completing retraining courses? Should employers be responsible for their monthly allowances?

Where does it end?

Paul Chan