On workers who "job-hop"

One letter writer comments on a news story about workers from China who change jobs. We analyse the comment.

Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)

Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".

Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.

Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...

Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.

Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...

Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:

Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.

Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.

Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.

Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.

Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.

Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.

Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.

Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.

The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.

1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors

These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.

Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.

END