• Wed
  • Oct 29, 2014
  • Updated: 1:02pm

Decent employers are at risk from fickle foreign domestic helpers

PUBLISHED : Friday, 07 March, 2014, 2:58am
UPDATED : Friday, 07 March, 2014, 2:58am

I refer to the article by Rob Connelly ("End discriminatory policies for migrant domestic workers", February 25).

As legal adviser to the HK Helpers Campaign, Mr Connelly is evidently in favour of domestic workers.

There are many decent employers around, as there are errant foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong.

Seemingly, the problem rests with overseas and local agencies, which get the helpers into debt even before they commence work. It is also the agencies that collude with the helpers to "job hop", a practice indeed lucrative to both parties.

When it comes to "luck", it is equally fortuitous that an employer should get a decent helper.

If Mr Connelly also talked with members of the Employers of Domestic Helpers Association, I expect he would discover there is a proportion of good employers who have felt aggrieved as a result of the actions of foreign helpers.

I applaud the government's stand to (at least) maintain the 14-day grace period [to find a new employer], and the live-in rule, as a deterrent to the increasing number of foreign helpers "moonlighting", for example at Wan Chai clubs. The employer undertakes full responsibility for the helper - not the campaigners.

As the government has already relented to foreign domestic helper campaigners to ease helper regulations, employers consequently do get stung, and there is little they can do.

My former helper took a month-long vacation with the benefit of a return air ticket prior to the end of the contract term, upon the understanding that these were the contractual entitlements of the existing agreement and a renewed contract for 2015-2017.

After the holiday, which coincided with the five-year long-service payment benchmark, the helper suddenly resigned without any valid reason, plunging my household into chaos and disruption. Notwithstanding the long-service payment, I was out of pocket for the (paid) month's worth of leave, the return air ticket for her holiday and the final air ticket. Who shall compensate me?

The Labour Department's response to this was that it could send the helper "an invitation letter to attend a conciliation meeting". Excuse me? The helper is home and dry enjoying the gains got from me and there is nothing I can do.

Had the helper been the aggrieved party, I would have had the full arm of the relevant ordinance hurled at me.

It is about time the stalwart campaigners had a reality check.

Rowena Hawkins, Sai Kung


More on this story

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Let's cut to the chase. Many 'decent' employers in Hong Kong want a subservient helper who will start preparing breakfast before 6am and still be there at 11pm cleaning up. And of course work on Sunday morning before they start their day off and Sunday evening when they come back. Hence the demand to retain 'live in'.
These same 'decent' employers also want to maid-hop. When the helper reaches the end of her contract- if she is able to handle the abuse for that long, and leaves, these 'decent' employers want to be able to hire another maid. Hence the 2 week rule- get them out of Hong Kong and hire replacements fresh from the Philippines, Indonesia or elsewhere.
And let's face it. There is far more maid-hopping by employers, than there is job-hopping by maids.
Oh, right. Employers are victims of those devious domestic helpers.
Please. You and everyone else who subscribes to this belief are racist. Period.
@"After the holiday, which coincided with the five-year long-service payment benchmark, the helper suddenly resigned without any valid reason, plunging my household into chaos and disruption"
A domestic helper can resign any time by giving short notice. Families are wise, therefore, not to become too dependent on their helpers. In any case, a mother's place is in the home looking after young children.
Now this statement, I know, will cause quite a stir. ......... it did back in 2005, when I wrote this in the hard copy of this paper
Well said. Thank you. Finally, someone speaking on behalf of employers.


SCMP.com Account