 |
| FDHs deplore the job-hopping allegation which led to tighter regulations of agencies (File) |
It is “totally unacceptable”
to require employment agencies to refund in full or in part, the service fee
paid to them by an employer in case the foreign domestic worker they placed is
terminated, or backs out before the two-year contract period ends.
This is what Thomas
Chan, chair of the Hong Kong Union of Employment Agencies, said in reaction to
today’s promulgation of the revised Code of Practice for EAs, which provides among
other things, that the service agreement between the agencies and the FDH
employers must state whether a refund or arrangement for a replacement FDH will
be provided in case of premature termination, or services are not rendered in
full.
“Giving a partial or
full refund to an employer if the helper terminates the contract is totally
unacceptable because the termination by either side could be due to a lot of
reasons,” said Chan. “Obliging the agency to refund implies that the termination
was caused by an agent, which is absolutely absurd.”
He sees nothing wrong in
making the agencies brief the FDHs on the possible consequences or premature termination
of contract, but said that again, this overlooks the reasons behind the worker’s
decision to quit early.
“The Code of Practice
simply tells agencies to brief workers but does not analyze the complicated
relationship between workers and employers,” said Chan.
Another feature of the
new CoP is the requirement that EAs must inform the Labour Department if they
are associated with any financial institution when applying for a license or
renewal of a license.
In addition, the EAs should
not provide job applicants with information regarding personal loans or
withhold their employment contracts to force them to pay or repay any sum of
money.
The amended Code
replaces the one promulgated on Feb. 9, 2018, and is largely as a result of
clamor from employers groups and legislators for an end to the so-called
job-hopping of FDHs, who they say switch employers for better pay and working
conditions.
The practice is said to
be condoned by some EAs who offer cash incentives to workers they want to poach
for employers who are desperately in need of domestic helpers.
To prevent this alleged
practice, the new CoP forbids agencies from offering money to workers so they
will terminate their contracts.
However, migrants and
their supporters have dismissed the job-hopping claim as a myth, saying workers
will not leave their employers if they are treated well, especially since many
of them are in debt and cannot afford to lose their jobs.
They also know that it is
not easy to change employers if their contracts are terminated as they will
need to go back to their home countries to wait for their new employment visa,
which means they will be jobless for at least six weeks.
Now that EAs are put
under a lot of pressure because of the new regulations, migrant workers fear that a big part of the problem will be passed on to them, as they are in the most vulnerable position because of their need to keep their jobs.
They say the number of terminations could rise, as employers will now be able to demand
a refund if they deem the worker unsuitable. They also fear that the potential drop in the
EAs’ income because of the refund provision would be passed on to them in the form of higher placement fees.
Either way, the workers say they could
find themselves in a worse situation than before.
