My grasp of language must be deteriorating...what in the world does this mean?!?
By ahgong
@ahgong (10064)
Singapore
June 9, 2011 10:51pm CST
I came across this quote from one of the blogs I was reading and was appalled by the sentence! And its potential meaning.
The article I was reading was in relation to the economy and its workforce.
And some high level economist said this:
"Singapore must make it easier for companies to lay off workers so that they would be more willing to hire them."
WTF? What exactly does this mean?
That companies must lay off workers so that the company is more willing to hire them?
This brings to mind a lot of questions!
If the company is looking to hire, why would they need to lay off existing workers in order to hire them? When in the first place, the workers are already IN the company!
It makes no sense!
And if they are looking to lay off workers, it would mean that the company has a SURPLUS of workers that they can do without when trying to trim their operating cost.
So it makes no sense either to lay off EXISTING workers just so they can hire new ones!
Share with me. Am I interpreting this sentence wrong? Or this economist does not know WTF is coming out of the hole in his face! 
WTF? What exactly does this mean?
That companies must lay off workers so that the company is more willing to hire them?
This brings to mind a lot of questions!
If the company is looking to hire, why would they need to lay off existing workers in order to hire them? When in the first place, the workers are already IN the company!
It makes no sense!
And if they are looking to lay off workers, it would mean that the company has a SURPLUS of workers that they can do without when trying to trim their operating cost.
So it makes no sense either to lay off EXISTING workers just so they can hire new ones!
Share with me. Am I interpreting this sentence wrong? Or this economist does not know WTF is coming out of the hole in his face! 
2 people like this
6 responses
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
10 Jun 11
It is not written as clearly as it could be. I think the meaning is that the government in Singapore needs to relax the rules an laws governing companys so that it is easer to lay off workers so that companys are not reluctant to take on workers that may only be needed for a limited amount of time.
1 person likes this
@owlwings (43897)
• Cambridge, England
10 Jun 11
Chiang_Mai_boy is absolutely correct. The logic of the argument is as follows:
"Currently, employers are reluctant to hire workers because, if they should subsequently need to lay them off, there are Government restrictions which make that difficult. Therefore the Government needs to ease these restrictions so that companies are more willing to hire people."
The sentence, as it stands, has put the main argument first ("Singapore must make it easier for companies to lay off workers") and the reason for the statement second ("so that [= because] companies would be more willing to hire them [if the Government did so].")
The sentence is not grammatically wrong but it is unclear in its meaning and therefore 'bad' English. In journalistic terms, unfortunately, this kind of sentence is quite common, though there are still a few editors who would reject it.
1 person likes this

@kun2349 (23381)
• Singapore
11 Jun 11
Lay off existing ones, because they are holding higher salary. While employ new workers with lower pay because those are the ones desperate for jobs and dun mind the salary.. lol =D It kinda makes sense to me, but it's not good for a company to do that though.. haha
There must be a reason for him/her to say that, even thohugh i dunno the true rational behind it. It's just my guess.. haha =D 
There must be a reason for him/her to say that, even thohugh i dunno the true rational behind it. It's just my guess.. haha =D 
@applefreak (3130)
• Singapore
11 Jun 11
to me, the sentence does make some sense.
it must be easy for companies to lay off workers for them to be willing to hire them. it means that companies must not be worried about getting stuck with some useless workers. if i know that i can't lay off workers that decreases productivity, i'd not be willing to hire them.
it's a little like getting a foreign domestic worker. if they make it so difficult to change a foreign domestic worker, i guess the number of foreign domestic worker will drop drastically. the current practice is the employer need to pay the foreign domestic worker all due wages and buy her a ticket home. or the employer can just bring her to the agency. can you imagine if the employer will have to go to court to show cause for why the foreign domestic worker should be laid off, pay the foreign domestic worker a lay off package and make sure that she can find appropriate employment??? i think there'll be no one who wants to hire a foreign domestic worker anymore...
the same theory applies to the meaning of the sentence. if severance packages are so expensive, companies will think twice, if not thrice, before hiring even one single worker.

the same theory applies to the meaning of the sentence. if severance packages are so expensive, companies will think twice, if not thrice, before hiring even one single worker.
1 person likes this
@scheng1 (24649)
• Singapore
10 Jun 11
Hi Ahgong, actually the blogger means that if company finds it easier to lay off workers, then it makes sense for them to hire with less fear.
I mean, if the company is in financial difficulties, and still has to justify retrenching the workers, and wait for government to approve its decision, then it may not want to hire any permanent workers when the economy picks up.
Everyone knows that hiring contract workers is better.
Once the contract ends, and the company does not need extra headcount, it does not have the obligation to explain the decision to the workers.
It does not even need to pay retrenchment benefits.
Some countries, especially the strong unions, make it so hard to lay off workers.
In the end, the company just shuts down the plant, and everyone becomes jobless.
The jobs go to the willing and hungry people in third world countries.
Actually in Singapore case, hiring and firing is very common.
Even if the workers are retrenched, they would never set fire to the company as a form of revenge.
1 person likes this
@frontvisions101 (16043)
• Philippines
10 Jun 11
I'm beginning to think the owners of the company are either ten year olds or the complete cast of Jersey Shore.
That's a completely dumb idea to say. They could have just kept it to themselves to appear wiser to the public than declare it. Stupid.
That's a completely dumb idea to say. They could have just kept it to themselves to appear wiser to the public than declare it. Stupid.1 person likes this
@sweetloveforeve (13116)
• Portugal
10 Jun 11
i think that it means that maybe companies in singapore should let their employers rest a bit more so that they would work better. lay off means like resting isnt it? give a time to rest right? maybe im understanding wrong the meaning of the word. but i think this guy meant that in singapore people should rest more so can do a better work^^ and that way sure the companies will want to hire more people. if you give
like 1 month vacations to an employer you will have to just find someone to substitute him for that month and that way companies can hire more people. sometimes there is one person working that is working like for two people bcs companies dont want to hire anybody else. so i guess thats what it means with this saying^^ here in my country it happens also that some people are doing the job of two bcs companies dont want to hire anybody else and sure they get very tired and frustrated.
1 person likes this







