http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,172894,00.html?
'PERFECT MAID' CAN'T DO ANYTHING
S'pore couple complains about misleading claims by maid from India
By Maureen Koh
August 11, 2008
FROM the biodata they were shown and a brief phone chat with the maid, the couple thought they had found the right helper for the family.
Stuck: Employers Mr P and wife Madam V find themselves stuck with an inexperienced maid. picture: Kua Chee Siong
They were told the maid could cook, take care of young children and do household chores.
But after the maid, from India, started work on 30 May, Mr Eshwaar and his wife were upset to discover that the claims were misleading.
The maid cannot cook or iron clothes, and she has no experience looking after young children.
All she can do are simple household chores such as sweep the floor, wash dishes and fold clothes.
Misleading claims was one of three top complaints filed against maid agencies, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) said in response to our queries. (See other report, right.)
Mr Eshwaar, an architect who did not want to give his full name, is frustrated that the agency is now telling him: If you want a replacement, you have to pay.
He was told it was in the contract of the $1,300 package he had taken up - and The New Paper on Sunday saw that it was.
The contract stated that there is a $200 fee for a replacement (within three months), but the agent told them they had to pay up to $350 for someone with experience.
'GLORIFIED RESUME'
Mr Eshwaar, 38, argued: 'I don't see why I should when I did not get what I was promised.'
He was also upset that he was giving a $280 salary to the maid because of the 'glorified' resume.
The average salary of a maid from India is between $220 and $250.
Mrs Eshwaar, 38, recalled that before the maid arrived, they had spoken to her on a long-distance call at the agency. The housewife said: 'Every question was met with a 'No problem, I can do it' response.'
Mr Eshwaar said: 'Because of this, we had no issue with paying more for quality.'
The couple, who have two boys, 41/2 and 1, live with Mrs Eshwaar's mother in a maisonette.
A month after the maid's arrival, Mrs Eshwaar found that 'she essentially cannot do anything'. The maid had to be constantly prompted and reminded about her duties.
Mrs Eshwaar said: 'When we reflected that to the agent, we were told to be patient with her.'
She said the maid later broke down and confessed that she had no prior experience. She alleged that the agent in India had told her to claim otherwise.
The maid confirmed this account separately.
When Mr Eshwaar highlighted the maid's inadequacy and allegation to the agency, he was offered the option of cutting the maid's salary to $230 - and he did.
Now, they are handling certain chores themselves, such as operating the washing machine - the maid damaged their last one - while Mrs Eshwaar's mother cooks.
Mr Seah Seng Choon, executive director of Case, said: 'Employment agencies are required to provide true and accurate data to employers.
'Any misrepresentation or omission of material facts is considered a breach and the consumer has the right to seek redress under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.'
And Mr Eshwaar should not be penalised into paying more when seeking a replacement, Mr Seah said.
'This is because the employer had selected the maid based on what was represented to him, and the agent has failed to fulfil his side of the bargain.'
'PERFECT MAID' CAN'T DO ANYTHING
S'pore couple complains about misleading claims by maid from India
By Maureen Koh
August 11, 2008
FROM the biodata they were shown and a brief phone chat with the maid, the couple thought they had found the right helper for the family.
Stuck: Employers Mr P and wife Madam V find themselves stuck with an inexperienced maid. picture: Kua Chee Siong
They were told the maid could cook, take care of young children and do household chores.
But after the maid, from India, started work on 30 May, Mr Eshwaar and his wife were upset to discover that the claims were misleading.
The maid cannot cook or iron clothes, and she has no experience looking after young children.
All she can do are simple household chores such as sweep the floor, wash dishes and fold clothes.
Misleading claims was one of three top complaints filed against maid agencies, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) said in response to our queries. (See other report, right.)
Mr Eshwaar, an architect who did not want to give his full name, is frustrated that the agency is now telling him: If you want a replacement, you have to pay.
He was told it was in the contract of the $1,300 package he had taken up - and The New Paper on Sunday saw that it was.
The contract stated that there is a $200 fee for a replacement (within three months), but the agent told them they had to pay up to $350 for someone with experience.
'GLORIFIED RESUME'
Mr Eshwaar, 38, argued: 'I don't see why I should when I did not get what I was promised.'
He was also upset that he was giving a $280 salary to the maid because of the 'glorified' resume.
The average salary of a maid from India is between $220 and $250.
Mrs Eshwaar, 38, recalled that before the maid arrived, they had spoken to her on a long-distance call at the agency. The housewife said: 'Every question was met with a 'No problem, I can do it' response.'
Mr Eshwaar said: 'Because of this, we had no issue with paying more for quality.'
The couple, who have two boys, 41/2 and 1, live with Mrs Eshwaar's mother in a maisonette.
A month after the maid's arrival, Mrs Eshwaar found that 'she essentially cannot do anything'. The maid had to be constantly prompted and reminded about her duties.
Mrs Eshwaar said: 'When we reflected that to the agent, we were told to be patient with her.'
She said the maid later broke down and confessed that she had no prior experience. She alleged that the agent in India had told her to claim otherwise.
The maid confirmed this account separately.
When Mr Eshwaar highlighted the maid's inadequacy and allegation to the agency, he was offered the option of cutting the maid's salary to $230 - and he did.
Now, they are handling certain chores themselves, such as operating the washing machine - the maid damaged their last one - while Mrs Eshwaar's mother cooks.
Mr Seah Seng Choon, executive director of Case, said: 'Employment agencies are required to provide true and accurate data to employers.
'Any misrepresentation or omission of material facts is considered a breach and the consumer has the right to seek redress under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.'
And Mr Eshwaar should not be penalised into paying more when seeking a replacement, Mr Seah said.
'This is because the employer had selected the maid based on what was represented to him, and the agent has failed to fulfil his side of the bargain.'
