By The SUN
 |
| Labour is proposing to add 'job-hopping' in the agencies' Code of Practice |
A proposal by the Labour Department to include
so-called “job-hopping” by foreign domestic helpers in the Code of Practice for
Employment Agencies has been met with angry responses by migrant workers and
agencies, but was welcomed by employers.
In a paper submitted to the Legislative Council on
Thursday, Labour proposed requiring agencies to explain to their recruits that
if they terminate their contracts they cannot remain in Hong Kong and move in
with another employer, unless for exceptional reasons such as relocation,
financial hardship or death of the employer, or if the worker has been abused
or exploited.
The agencies will also be expressly forbidden from
offering any monetary reward to FDHs to induce them to terminate their contracts,
and at the same time, will be required to discuss with the employer the
refunding of fees, or FDH replacement in case of contract pre-termination.
The proposal will be presented to Legco’s Manpower
Panel on March 21, after which an eight-week consultation period will be held. Stakeholders
such as EA and FDH organizations and employer groups will be asked for their
views.
Ahead of the consultation, several FDH organizations
and their support groups hit out at the proposal, saying helpers would not terminate
their contracts deliberately just so they could sign up with another who offers
them a better deal.
Given the amount of money, time and effort it took
them to secure a job in Hong Kong, they will not be putting all of that at risk
by moving to another employer who may not necessarily treat them better, the groups
say.
Eman Villanueva, spokesperson for United Filipinos in
Hong Kong, said the proposal is also tantamount to promoting bonded labor.
“It threatens migrant domestic workers of possible
denial of working visa and as a result, will force many to stay even in the
most unbearable working and living condition,” said Villanueva.
“It also contravenes their own policy of allowing both
the employer and the worker to terminate their contract prematurely.”
Eni Lestari, chair of the International Migrants
Alliance, said there is no such thing as job-hopping, but just an exercise of
the worker’s right to choose who to work for.
“If other people are allowed to change employers or
companies freely, why not us? In our experience, most of the domestic workers
would stay with a family as long as they are treated humanely, they are treated
properly and they are paid enough,” Lestari said.
Curtailing workers’ right to choose their employer
could also be a violation of the Basic Law, otherwise known as Hong Kong’s
mini-constitution, according to Thomas Chan, chair of the Hong Kong Union of
Employment Agencies.
He cited article 31 of the BL which provides that “Hong
Kong residents shall have freedom of choice of occupation,” and article 43,
which says that all persons in the HKSAR shall enjoy the same rights and
freedoms as Hong Kong residents.
Chan said rather than giving the Immigration
Department wide powers to act on job-hopping suspicions, the government should
set up a committee comprising representatives from the workers, employers, agencies
and the consulates concerned, which will have a final say on such cases.
He also said that Labour would effectively be amending
the law with Legco’s approval if job-hopping, a concept that is too vague and
has never appeared in any statute, is included in the Code of Practice.
But Betty Yung, chair of the Hong Kong Employers of
Overseas Domestic Helpers Association, welcomed the government’s proposals,
saying the current system is unfair.
Yung said in an interview that employers pay a huge
sum to agencies to get the FDH to come to Hong Kong, so the worker should not
be allowed to freely terminate the contract before the expiry term of two
years. She griped that employers are even obliged to pay for the worker’s return
air ticket.
Such sentiment is shared and promoted by some
legislators, in particular those who come from the pro-Beijing Democratic
Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong.
Not only do they want workers who terminate their contracts
to be sent home, they are also calling for the 14-days they are allowed to remain in Hong Kong post-termination to
be cut to seven days. They also want FDHs who terminate their contracts prematurely to pay their employers a certain sum.
.jpg)
.jpg)
