MOM staff to get ergonomic chairs


Status
Not open for further replies.

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#1
STAFF at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) headquarters in Kim Seng Road can expect designer chairs at their workplace soon.
The ministry is buying 472 Herman Miller chairs (photo), each priced at $575, for general office use for its staff. The chairs, which are not delivered yet, will cost $271,400 in total.
Herman Miller, an American manufacturer of office furniture and equipment, is famous for producing furniture in the modernist style.
An MOM spokesman confirmed in a statement yesterday that it has awarded a tender for the supply and delivery of the ergonomically designed chairs.
The chair model is called Celle, known for its cellular suspension system which supports the back and lumbar region.
In evaluating the tenders submitted, the MOM spokesman said, various factors were considered, such as the ergonomic design, durability and value for money. 'Taking all these factors into account, the successful tenderer met our requirements and offered the best value for money over the lifespan of the chairs.'

extracted from the straits times



Do you think a cash-rich statutory board should pay $575 for a branded chair for its staff?
HM chairs are not known for low prices because it is a "designer" product, and how does one come to a conclusion that $575 is the best value for money?:think:
Instead of those cheap chairs (those below $150) there should be some good chairs that cost around $250? Why not look for those best value chairs for $250?

If MOM is justified to make such conclusion, can all the other Statutory Boards/Ministries (all are damned cash-rich) make the same call? iPads/iPhone for staff? OSIMs, 3D tv? these are also "value for money" items if you call for a tender for 1,000 units! I don't think this is right :dunno:

What do you think? :think: I hope these chairs are not made/assembled in a third world country.
 

Last edited:

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,312
23
0
Earth
www.facebook.com
#2
it's just not right. i'm smelling a rat somewhere.
as with all conspiracy theories.
it's not justified, even though the MOM is the biggest HRM "company" in the nation that takes care of the people, it's not justified to waste tax payer monies on

DESIGNER CHAIRS.

do i smell another Durai-n?
 

ninelives

Senior Member
Jan 16, 2002
3,248
3
38
BB
ninelives.clubsnap.org
#3
that explained why CITREP now is only 50%(effective from apr) compare to 80% and they also remove a lot of certs. coz the money was spent on chairs......

btw Canonised, where is the link?
 

Last edited:

kayheem

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2004
577
0
16
53
#4
Interesting article. Just my 2 cts worth:

MOM is deeply involved in industrial health, of which ergonomics feature strongly. If MOM is found to have staff who have back / neck problems arising from using poorly designed chairs, they will be the laughing stock! :)

I have visited one of their departments in Kim Seng Road and they follow safety guidelines very closely e.g. non-slip surfaces where necessary, markings for low overhanging structures and steps, prominent signages etc.

I guess they do need ergonomic chairs, given the nature of their work. Whether each chair should cost so much....that is another question!
 

ArchRival

New Member
Sep 17, 2006
559
4
0
#6
Financial year ending soon. They must spend all their budget.
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#8
There are no other options that is cost at $250. At $575, a Herman Miller is a damn good value.

You spent more time sitting in your office chair, with your bed being the only thing you spent more time with.

Back pain, shoulder pain, neck pain, all due to bad postures, enforced upon many workers beause they have to sit in badly designed and manufactured chairs. Have you figure in the medical cost, and the cost of better health?

A well manufactured chair last 10-15 years. The annualized cost is not meaningful. Happier worker, is that not a good thing? Ok, we don't the the stat board and therefore, we should punished the workers there with bad working enviroment? If that is the case, so be it.

Again, go find something that cost $250 and can match a Herman miller, tell me, Iwill go get one.

Written why sitting on a 2 year old Herman Miller Aeron, which replaced a 17 year old Herman Miller.
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#9
There are no other options that is cost at $250. At $575, a Herman Miller is a damn good value.

You spent more time sitting in your office chair, with your bed being the only thing you spent more time with.

Back pain, shoulder pain, neck pain, all due to bad postures, enforced upon many workers beause they have to sit in badly designed and manufactured chairs. Have you figure in the medical cost, and the cost of better health?

A well manufactured chair last 10-15 years. The annualized cost is not meaningful. Happier worker, is that not a good thing? Ok, we don't the the stat board and therefore, we should punished the workers there with bad working enviroment? If that is the case, so be it.

Again, go find something that cost $250 and can match a Herman miller, tell me, Iwill go get one.

Written while sitting on a 2 year old Herman Miller Aeron, which replaced a 17 year old Herman Miller.
 

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,312
23
0
Earth
www.facebook.com
#10
There are no other options that is cost at $250. At $575, a Herman Miller is a damn good value.

You spent more time sitting in your office chair, with your bed being the only thing you spent more time with.

Back pain, shoulder pain, neck pain, all due to bad postures, enforced upon many workers beause they have to sit in badly designed and manufactured chairs. Have you figure in the medical cost, and the cost of better health?

A well manufactured chair last 10-15 years. The annualized cost is not meaningful. Happier worker, is that not a good thing? Ok, we don't the the stat board and therefore, we should punished the workers there with bad working enviroment? If that is the case, so be it.

Again, go find something that cost $250 and can match a Herman miller, tell me, Iwill go get one.

Written while sitting on a 2 year old Herman Miller Aeron, which replaced a 17 year old Herman Miller.
i see your point. they are lasting. but to the common man, it'll be just a waste.

$250 / 15 years (assuming nothing happens) is roughly $17 per year.

hmm...
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#11
There are no other options that is cost at $250. At $575, a Herman Miller is a damn good value.
If MOM is a privately owned company, by all means buy whatever they want and like. But they are using the taxpayers' monies. The objective in a public service must be to be more cost conscious and not managing the public budget like a housewife doing her shopping in a designer's lane. If MOM can have such logic in their purchasing decisions, why can't the rest of the other hundreds of public organisations?
Then, besides chair, the "damn good value" concept can also apply to tables, cabinets, wallpaper, carpets, office equipments, gold tap (if the listed RRP is $10,000 per tap, and if they offer MOM $500, what if MOM comes around with the same logic, because a good common brand tap can cost as much as $200?).

Then there is a case of marketing. Many years ago, I used to buy accessories for my home. Example, the listed price for a simple "designer's brand" vase is $2k, but when it went 80% or 90% discount, I bought them, thinking that I got something at a "damn good value". Years later, I realized that I was actually a fool because it was all about creative pricing by the agents.

Whether it is good value or not, I think it is just morally wrong to use the public fund to make such purchases. The monies saved can actually go a long way to help those poor staying in small flats without a proper bed, table, chair, etc... What ergonomic! just plain bullsh1t! There are many govt boards in many parts of the world, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan (the other dragons), etc which are still using wooden chairs, plastic chairs, simple chairs, etc. and no one dies from sitting and working on them.:dunno:
 

ninelives

Senior Member
Jan 16, 2002
3,248
3
38
BB
ninelives.clubsnap.org
#12
i watched documentaries on channel 5, there some really poor people, 1 incident:

the husband is paralyze, the son is too young or cannot work( dont rememeber why), the wife have to work alone to take care of both people. how can this work? the wife cannot be working and taking care of his hubby at the same time mah..

so she asked for help,but "they" replied "you got hands and legs mah, why still need help?

Diana ser was the host, she also cried...

this world very realistic one.
 

Last edited:

coolsigg

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
2,473
0
0
#13
Agree with DP and Kit, $575 for HM chair? where to find? I also want to buy one.

U see those chapalang brand ergo chairs advertised on newspaper already costs $300-400 and I bet none has more comprehensive warranty coverage than a HM chair.

Putting aside whether the $$ can be put to better use etc, looking at the whole issue on its own objectively: Govt ministry needs to buy chairs for the staff. Do they go for the cheapo type ($200-300) whereby they need to change perhaps every 2-3 years or they go for HM, which most of us who use it knows that it can go at least 5 years (if not more), which option is a better use of tax payers' money in the long run?

One issue I forsee is that customers will start asking the HM distributor to reduce the prices as I am 100% sure that others cant buy the HM chair at $575! :bsmilie:
 

#14
Agree with DP and Kit, $575 for HM chair? where to find? I also want to buy one.

U see those chapalang brand ergo chairs advertised on newspaper already costs $300-400 and I bet none has more comprehensive warranty coverage than a HM chair.

Putting aside whether the $$ can be put to better use etc, looking at the whole issue on its own objectively: Govt ministry needs to buy chairs for the staff. Do they go for the cheapo type ($200-300) whereby they need to change perhaps every 2-3 years or they go for HM, which most of us who use it knows that it can go at least 5 years (if not more), which option is a better use of tax payers' money in the long run?

One issue I forsee is that customers will start asking the HM distributor to reduce the prices as I am 100% sure that others cant buy the HM chair at $575! :bsmilie:
You want it at $575? Can....just order 500 of them, I'm sure the distributor will sell it to you at that price too. :p
 

coolsigg

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
2,473
0
0
#15
ray_stinger said:
you want it at $575? Can....just order 500 of them, i'm sure the distributor will sell it to you at that price too. :p
like! :)
 

Last edited:

hanzohattori

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2010
999
5
18
#16
If MOM is a privately owned company, by all means buy whatever they want and like. But they are using the taxpayers' monies. The objective in a public service must be to be more cost conscious and not managing the public budget like a housewife doing her shopping in a designer's lane. If MOM can have such logic in their purchasing decisions, why can't the rest of the other hundreds of public organisations?
Then, besides chair, the "damn good value" concept can also apply to tables, cabinets, wallpaper, carpets, office equipments, gold tap (if the listed RRP is $10,000 per tap, and if they offer MOM $500, what if MOM comes around with the same logic, because a good common brand tap can cost as much as $200?).

Then there is a case of marketing. Many years ago, I used to buy accessories for my home. Example, the listed price for a simple "designer's brand" vase is $2k, but when it went 80% or 90% discount, I bought them, thinking that I got something at a "damn good value". Years later, I realized that I was actually a fool because it was all about creative pricing by the agents.

Whether it is good value or not, I think it is just morally wrong to use the public fund to make such purchases. The monies saved can actually go a long way to help those poor staying in small flats without a proper bed, table, chair, etc... What ergonomic! just plain bullsh1t! There are many govt boards in many parts of the world, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan (the other dragons), etc which are still using wooden chairs, plastic chairs, simple chairs, etc. and no one dies from sitting and working on them.:dunno:
Bravo.. if publics servant get too comfortable, the will lose touch with those whom they serve and with the reality around them. They won't care much about people's problem anymore.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#17
Bravo.. if publics servant get too comfortable, the will lose touch with those whom they serve and with the reality around them. They won't care much about people's problem anymore.
They will say otherwise though. They will say their employees need to be comfortable so they can think of policies to benefit "everyone".
 

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,312
23
0
Earth
www.facebook.com
#18
They will say otherwise though. They will say their employees need to be comfortable so they can think of policies to benefit "everyone".
well. it's our government's MOM we're talking about. MOM's kids come first before others :bsmilie:
 

Yutaka Go

Senior Member
May 22, 2010
983
7
18
SG
#19
i see your point. they are lasting. but to the common man, it'll be just a waste.

$250 / 15 years (assuming nothing happens) is roughly $17 per year.

hmm...
True. Most common man use this

Less than $10 and quite effective
I use one at Office and one at Home
 

fotoudavid

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,158
3
38
#20
what can we do????

as much as i believe the ppl working there shd have a better chairs to protect their back, the amount is BIG considering the numbers of chairs bought.

conclusion: when buy, better dun let the news out.........haha i expect some ministers will say it is peanuts.....
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom