<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Do employers of errant maids really get protection?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letter by the Association of Employment Agencies, Singapore (AEAS), 'Action promised against errant agencies' (July 25).
It mentioned that employers have an avenue to lodge complaints through AEAS and that employers' rights will be protected by tight regulation by AEAS. Let me recount my experience to highlight how vulnerable employers' rights are in Singapore.
In December last year, my wife and I hired a maid through an agency. She had been with us for about a month when we had to let her go due to misconduct.
As per our contract, our maid agency was supposed to provide us with a suitable replacement. We waited for weeks for the agency to contact us but to no avail. After repeated calls and visits, we were told the agency would send us a few biodata of possible replacements to choose from. To our surprise, we were sent the same profiles of maids we had seen earlier and rejected. The biodata were simply recycled.
Finally, we were forced to approach another maid agency to get a new maid to help care for our newborn.
After the initial stress of getting a new maid was over, we wrote to AEAS to complain about the first agency. We were later shocked to learn that AEAS, in the course of its investigations, had accidentally revealed our case details, personal information and personal communications to another employer it was helping in investigation.
We confronted AEAS on this breach of confidentiality. However, to our disappointment, there was no formal apology from AEAS. It also did not contact the other client to apologise. We managed to get the contact of the other client from misdirected letters and contacted the other client to apologise for the mix-up in identities.
Despite this, we waited patiently for AEAS' decision on our case. AEAS did get back to us finally but with a letter simply stating that its investigations showed no liability by the maid agency. We were surprised by this decision and contested this decision as we felt the investigations were not conducted satisfactorily.
We were asked to attend a mediation session with a lawyer and had to pay mediation fees on top of the loss we had incurred from the first maid agency.
On the day of the mediation, I was the only one who turned up at the lawyer's office. When I contacted AEAS, I was told the officer in charge had rescheduled the session but had forgotten to inform me.
Imagine our disappointment when my wife and I thought the issue would be resolved finally after an agonising wait of almost four months. Despite all this, we wrote to AEAS seeking an apology.
It has been three weeks and we have not heard from AEAS. After all this, it was ironic to read AEAS' Forum reply assuring readers of its commitment to investigate fairly and responsibly, and take action against errant agencies if need be.
As confused consumers who have been taken on a wild goose chase by AEAS, my wife and I would like to ask a simple question. As 'aggrieved employers', are we supposed to take matters into our own hands in hiring our own lawyer, or do we solicit the help of the Ministry of Manpower to ensure agency audit and employers' rights protection?
K. Kannan
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letter by the Association of Employment Agencies, Singapore (AEAS), 'Action promised against errant agencies' (July 25).
It mentioned that employers have an avenue to lodge complaints through AEAS and that employers' rights will be protected by tight regulation by AEAS. Let me recount my experience to highlight how vulnerable employers' rights are in Singapore.
In December last year, my wife and I hired a maid through an agency. She had been with us for about a month when we had to let her go due to misconduct.
As per our contract, our maid agency was supposed to provide us with a suitable replacement. We waited for weeks for the agency to contact us but to no avail. After repeated calls and visits, we were told the agency would send us a few biodata of possible replacements to choose from. To our surprise, we were sent the same profiles of maids we had seen earlier and rejected. The biodata were simply recycled.
Finally, we were forced to approach another maid agency to get a new maid to help care for our newborn.
After the initial stress of getting a new maid was over, we wrote to AEAS to complain about the first agency. We were later shocked to learn that AEAS, in the course of its investigations, had accidentally revealed our case details, personal information and personal communications to another employer it was helping in investigation.
We confronted AEAS on this breach of confidentiality. However, to our disappointment, there was no formal apology from AEAS. It also did not contact the other client to apologise. We managed to get the contact of the other client from misdirected letters and contacted the other client to apologise for the mix-up in identities.
Despite this, we waited patiently for AEAS' decision on our case. AEAS did get back to us finally but with a letter simply stating that its investigations showed no liability by the maid agency. We were surprised by this decision and contested this decision as we felt the investigations were not conducted satisfactorily.
We were asked to attend a mediation session with a lawyer and had to pay mediation fees on top of the loss we had incurred from the first maid agency.
On the day of the mediation, I was the only one who turned up at the lawyer's office. When I contacted AEAS, I was told the officer in charge had rescheduled the session but had forgotten to inform me.
Imagine our disappointment when my wife and I thought the issue would be resolved finally after an agonising wait of almost four months. Despite all this, we wrote to AEAS seeking an apology.
It has been three weeks and we have not heard from AEAS. After all this, it was ironic to read AEAS' Forum reply assuring readers of its commitment to investigate fairly and responsibly, and take action against errant agencies if need be.
As confused consumers who have been taken on a wild goose chase by AEAS, my wife and I would like to ask a simple question. As 'aggrieved employers', are we supposed to take matters into our own hands in hiring our own lawyer, or do we solicit the help of the Ministry of Manpower to ensure agency audit and employers' rights protection?
K. Kannan
