And please don't tell me you are going to use this as an excuse for getting out of paying their long service payment.
And please don't tell me you are going to use this as an excuse for getting out of paying their long service payment.
You're talking about $400. You can't be serious. If my boss tried to stiff me, I'd be pissed too.
They don't have the luxury of coming and going as they please - YOU DO.
It's not their choice that you employ two helpers and so need to screw them in order to 'make ends meet' - HAVE YOU ASKED THEM HOW THEY MAKE ENDS MEET.
I'm assuming they also share the room they sleep in - NICE TO HAVE A CHOICE.
You really need to sit down and think long and hard about how you would feel if you were a domestic helper with very little choices. You also seem a little 'shocked' that they have heard and read the news about the levy. Do you not expect helpers to be able to know about issues that relate to them?
I'm very shocked and saddened that this is even an issue for SOME people that hire helpers.
Last edited by saphireruby; 02-08-2008 at 05:58 PM.
Back when the levy was introduced, it was a charge on owners for hiring foreign workers. It was just a matter of coincidence [according to the Govt] that a reduction in the minimum pay was also the exact same amount and at the exact same time.
So we have a levy for the employer and a paycut for the helper.
Recently the pay has been upped by $100 for new contracts, and there has been a suspension of the levy.
Now unless the helper was being asked to bear the levy ie take a cut in her pay [of $400 in 2003] AND another cut for the levy, I don't see why the present windfall should be passed on.
I may be paying my helper $15,000 but the minute the $100 increase would I not raise my helper's pay by a similar amount?
If the helpers were getting a cut they would be the first to ask their bosses to terminate their contracts.
Instead we had pressure put on the government to act to counter the terminations.
Huxeille, The gov't has gradually increased the min wage since they cut it in 2003. It's now up $300 and helpers are only short $100. It doesn't make a difference, most Expat employers are paying more than min wage.
the point being that you are mixing up helper salary with 'misc expenses ' in getting the helper from there to here-suppose these costs say $20,000 for a two year contract went down, by half, why should that affect the workers salary.
-
If that does not clarify my point then take this example
you have two offices one in Central, and one in Chaiwan- if you moved staff to Chaiwan would you give them a payrise as the rents are cheaper there?
The reduction in salary and the imposition of the levy were clearly linked and though the minimum pay has gone up 300 since then this is just inflation linking the lower salary. So using your analogy - you moved office from Chai Wan to Central and cut the salary to cover costs. Surely then moving back to Chai Wan the salary cut should be given back to the workers?
I, like many on this thread make no bones about finding the OP's post outrageous. I really pity the helpers that work for them. What the helpers should do is let the OP fire them, pay them one month (which they are obliged to do) send them home pretending that they will resign with them when actually they have already found a new employer that will not be such an ingrate.
I'm guessing that these poor helpers are also only paid minimum wage, which is an absolute laugh especially when looking after 3 kids, and as someone else mentioned, probably have to share a tiny box of a room to boot. I'd hate to think how the kids treat the helpers if the parents show such disrespect.
If you can't afford to pay 2 helpers a reasonable wage and you have no intention of looking after your kids yourself perhaps it would have been wise to stick to two kids.