<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Errant maids: No recourse for employers who become victims
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY INDONESIAN maid ran away after only seven weeks of employment when she was treated well and complimented for good work. Unknown to us, she had chalked up a hefty overseas telephone bill of $690. Subsequently, we discovered that she had stolen my elderly mother's SIM card and replaced it with a dummy. With the stolen SIM card, she ran up another $800 cellphone bill while still at large.
Three police reports were made about her disappearance, and theft of cash and various articles. Although we gave the police many leads, such as text messages and phone calls received on my mother's replaced SIM card, she is still missing.
When I contacted the maid agency, staff were defensive and indifferent, claiming that as she was employed by me, I would have to handle the situation myself. They also said that as she was still missing and could not be returned to the agency, I stood to lose advance wages paid.
I stand to lose about $4,050 in phone bills, fines and advance wages paid. This incident highlights shortfalls in current maid employment policies and practices:
Although employers must abide by conditions of employment, in the case a dishonest maid, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) policies are punitive and rigid. As her employer, I still must pay for her eventual repatriation and fines for overstaying. MOM told me several times to 'look for her and find her'. If I took this literally, I would have to search for her in person.
MOM should also tighten control when licensing maid agencies. The current practice of allowing them to practise advance salary payments is unfair to employers as there is no shared financial responsibility when a maid goes missing.
The current maid selection process is faulty and random. Potential employers must rely on superficial bio-data information. Furthermore, when employers return their maid for transfer, they are not obliged to disclose the real reasons. Perhaps MOM could stipulate that maid agencies and employers should declare in writing the real reasons for transfer, holding them liable for misrepresentation.
Germaine Ong (Ms)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY INDONESIAN maid ran away after only seven weeks of employment when she was treated well and complimented for good work. Unknown to us, she had chalked up a hefty overseas telephone bill of $690. Subsequently, we discovered that she had stolen my elderly mother's SIM card and replaced it with a dummy. With the stolen SIM card, she ran up another $800 cellphone bill while still at large.
Three police reports were made about her disappearance, and theft of cash and various articles. Although we gave the police many leads, such as text messages and phone calls received on my mother's replaced SIM card, she is still missing.
When I contacted the maid agency, staff were defensive and indifferent, claiming that as she was employed by me, I would have to handle the situation myself. They also said that as she was still missing and could not be returned to the agency, I stood to lose advance wages paid.
I stand to lose about $4,050 in phone bills, fines and advance wages paid. This incident highlights shortfalls in current maid employment policies and practices:
Although employers must abide by conditions of employment, in the case a dishonest maid, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) policies are punitive and rigid. As her employer, I still must pay for her eventual repatriation and fines for overstaying. MOM told me several times to 'look for her and find her'. If I took this literally, I would have to search for her in person.
MOM should also tighten control when licensing maid agencies. The current practice of allowing them to practise advance salary payments is unfair to employers as there is no shared financial responsibility when a maid goes missing.
The current maid selection process is faulty and random. Potential employers must rely on superficial bio-data information. Furthermore, when employers return their maid for transfer, they are not obliged to disclose the real reasons. Perhaps MOM could stipulate that maid agencies and employers should declare in writing the real reasons for transfer, holding them liable for misrepresentation.
Germaine Ong (Ms)
