Advertisement

Infamous two-week rule so unfair

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0

JANET Kwok's assertion (letters, South China Morning Post, January 11) that '' . . . occasional complaints about sexual molestation by male employees, physical torture and inadequate food supplies are excessively reported . . . '', leaves her open to severe criticism.

Such abuses by one human being against another - racism doesn't enter into it at all - are intolerable.

They should be given the widest coverage possible, and in cases of sexual molestation - also known as indecent assault or attempted rape - as well as physical abuse of any kind, they should be the subject of rigorous criminal investigations.

The problem is that domestic helpers are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to any kind of dispute, and most of them can be pushed pretty hard, by unscrupulous employers, before they'll risk losing a monthly wage that probably supports an entire family back home.

The disadvantage can be summed up by the term: two-week rule.

The infamous two-week rule, which the Philippine Consul-General (Post, January 11) seems to look upon as a good thing, was introduced in order to prevent domestic helpers from securing another job when they were dismissed, or they resigned - no matter what their reasons for so doing. It certainly wasn't designed to help them find another job.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2-3x faster
1.1x
220 WPM
Slow
Normal
Fast
1.1x