How waiving levy affect domestic workers

In this report published today in a local newspaper, explains how the waiving of the HKD400 (Php 2280.12) levy on employers had its effect in terms of the security employment of domestic workers in Hong Kong.

The monthly levy, which cost the employer a total of HKD9,600 (Php 54,722.8), for every two-year contract it signed with a domestic worker, has its advantages and disadvantages. However, it’s the worker who remains at losing end. The levy itself, which is supposedly intended for the training and improvement or the workers, are reportedly not been used for the said purpose.

One, while it is beneficial to employers, as they would be able to save up HKD9,600 once they hire workers to begin by September of this year as they cope given the soaring inflation rate here, it has however become an unlikely means for others to take opportunity threatening workers job security.

For instance, for the employers to avail of these levy order, some are holding the employment of new domestic workers back until the said order takes effect; others, who are towards the end, or half way through completing their two-year contract, are now considering of terminating their worker to avail of the new levy order.

Employing new domestic workers by September would mean the employer could save KHD9,600 for the next two years they usually pay for levy. Some employers now are also intending to terminate their worker’s contract even before its completion; and would hire only when the levy order takes effect.

However, what is of serious concern more is the employer’s plan to suspend the employment of domestic workers until the new levy order takes effect. It obviously would mean it has become a one month self-imposed moratorium amongst the employers themselves here. This would have tremendous consequence to workers who are finishing their contract and are finding new employers.

In Hong Kong, a domestic worker, who had just finished her contract, would only be given two weeks allowable stay in finding for new employer; failing to do so would mean they would have to leave otherwise their stay would already become illegal and they could be deported.

Even though employers needed to pay their workers once they terminate them; well, if the amount that they would be saving from levy order compared to the amount they would be paying once they terminate workers is huge, then some may have been willing of doing so.

Then, once again, once the workers are terminated, she must be able to get a new employer within two weeks, otherwise she had to go.