<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Why make employers 'post bail' for runaway maids?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Saturday's reply by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), 'MOM explains new foreign worker rules'.
When a maid absconds, it is precisely because she has breached a condition under rules governing employers' liability that have been in place for the past 25 years.
As maids will be liable for infringements of rules from next January, it is illogical that employers must still 'post bail' for maids who abscond.
MOM says it will consider refunding the $2,500 to the employer if the latter is lucky enough to find and repatriate the maid within three months. In what way does the employer benefit when he is still responsible for finding the maid, and still suffers a loss if he does?
Like MOM, responsible agents and non-governmental agencies, which maids approach to redress grievances such as arrears of pay, must first investigate whether the maids' claims can be substantiated.
In the meantime, a maid is entitled to seek a new employer. MOM should be aware that it requires a timeframe to seek a new employer for the maid, since MOM normally takes about three months to settle a case.
While providing accommodation and meals for aggrieved maids during the waiting period, it is only right for MOM to insist that errant employers reimburse employment agents, especially the non-governmental organisations that depend on donations and volunteers to operate, rather than take a neutral stand.
Common sense dictates that for a business entity to stay viable, it must charge a prospective employer for successful placements of aggrieved maids.
Will an employer who has, as recently as August, renewed the work permit of his current maid be held liable for her breach of conditions if she absconds on Jan 5 next year, in view of the fact that the security bond would have expired by then?
Alice Cheah (Ms)
Caregivers Centre
<!-- end of for each --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Saturday's reply by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), 'MOM explains new foreign worker rules'.
When a maid absconds, it is precisely because she has breached a condition under rules governing employers' liability that have been in place for the past 25 years.
As maids will be liable for infringements of rules from next January, it is illogical that employers must still 'post bail' for maids who abscond.
MOM says it will consider refunding the $2,500 to the employer if the latter is lucky enough to find and repatriate the maid within three months. In what way does the employer benefit when he is still responsible for finding the maid, and still suffers a loss if he does?
Like MOM, responsible agents and non-governmental agencies, which maids approach to redress grievances such as arrears of pay, must first investigate whether the maids' claims can be substantiated.
In the meantime, a maid is entitled to seek a new employer. MOM should be aware that it requires a timeframe to seek a new employer for the maid, since MOM normally takes about three months to settle a case.
While providing accommodation and meals for aggrieved maids during the waiting period, it is only right for MOM to insist that errant employers reimburse employment agents, especially the non-governmental organisations that depend on donations and volunteers to operate, rather than take a neutral stand.
Common sense dictates that for a business entity to stay viable, it must charge a prospective employer for successful placements of aggrieved maids.
Will an employer who has, as recently as August, renewed the work permit of his current maid be held liable for her breach of conditions if she absconds on Jan 5 next year, in view of the fact that the security bond would have expired by then?
Alice Cheah (Ms)
Caregivers Centre
<!-- end of for each --><!-- Current Ratings : start --><!-- Current Ratings : end --><!-- vbbintegration : start -->
