Like Tree21Likes

What income percentile is 60HKD a month?

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,624
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    Yes i was talking about expats in international companies.

    I've no idea about numbers, perhaps it's not that many - but my company offers 6 months (for expats) and I wasn't aware that that was particularly exceptional.
    Okayyyy but the guy was talking abt HK, not expat contracts. On expat contract it's obviously different.


    Sent from my iPad using GeoClicks

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    Okayyyy but the guy was talking abt HK, not expat contracts. On expat contract it's obviously different.


    Sent from my iPad using GeoClicks
    I was talking about expat contracts *in hk*, as presumably the op is on a work visa - not a local hire.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,446
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    I was talking about expat contracts *in hk*, as presumably the op is on a work visa - not a local hire.
    All the expats I know in HK (mainly bankers/FS staff) are on local contracts as there's been a move away from expat contracts (by some of the big banks at least)......so usually the same sh*tty deal as the locals.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,624
    Quote Originally Posted by usehername:
    I was talking about expat contracts *in hk*, as presumably the op is on a work visa - not a local hire.
    U don't need to have an expat contract to get a work visa. Most "expats" these days are on local terms.



    Sent from my iPad using GeoClicks

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,968

    Not just a small business employer. Always have thought that most perks don't belong in the workplace.


  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,079
    Original Post Deleted
    Surely it comes down to what the renumeration is and how it compares with your situation in your home country, not whether you get something locals don't. I think that expats have different needs, but comparison of living costs versus income is what it comes down to. If you are better off here, come, if you aren't, don't.

    My husbands company do not offer expat packages, but the package makes it more than worthwhile compared to the UK.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,968

    I am all for continuity of service AND keeping conditions the same as your previous country. If you're worth it, go for it, get what you want and deserve - just like the employer who will not hesitate to get rid of you if you don't deliver.

    What I'm against (and always have been, even as an employee in a previous life) is the view that the employer is responsible for your welfare. They're not and will never be.

    bibbju, HK_Katherine and nike439 like this.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    U don't need to have an expat contract to get a work visa. Most "expats" these days are on local terms.



    Sent from my iPad using GeoClicks
    I know you don't need an expat contract for a visa.

    You said decent maternity leave is rare unless you're on an expat contract and I said I was talking about expats contracts.
    iliketurtles likes this.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,880

    Don't worry, you've made your point clearly and successfully. He's just backtracking and scrabbling around to save face.

    I also see in a lot of expat contracts better than legal maternity provisions. I thought that was generally accepted and non controversial.


  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,323
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    Katherine I didn't read her post like that at all.

    Maternity protection was not set up to dole out free cash to an expecting mother. It was to protect them from employment termination and offer a minimum time off work to be able to have their child and to recover from it.

    OP was concerned that her employer deliberately structured her employment so that it could terminate her engagement with no responsibility over pregnancy.

    If that is the case, it is a shocking discrimination that clearly wouldn't apply to a man in a similar situation.

    The friends and family I have don't necessarily care about the money they receive during the time off but the protection that their employer can't terminate them for this reason.

    There are of course always going to be abusers of this system but I'd guess the majority of women benefit from these protections within the originally intended scope.
    The only time the employer cannot terminate the employee is DURING pregnancy - after being told about the pregnancy. I think there is a short period right after too. But after that, all restraints are off. So there is no long term job security at all. The only benefit to the woman, therefore, is that they get paid during pregnancy and for a short period afterwards - in other words this translates into a money issue.

    Put it another way, if the law said pregnant women could not be terminated, but didn't get paid for maternity leave, then no employer would sack pregnant workers. It's only about having to pay people who are not working. If you are a small employer, paying for a member of staff who is not working it a big drain. For larger employers it's much less of an issue because the woman is a smaller proportion of the cost/benefit equation.