Creation of jobs and significant agrarian reforms in the home country is the only solution

Belarmino Dabalos Saguing

Rome, Italy 23/01/2014

The modern day slaves

The international uproar on Indonesian migrant domestic worker Erwiana Sulistyaningsih who became the latest symbol  of the deplorable plight of many migrtant workers around the world raises a question: is the fault mainly on the government of the host country? Many tends to think so, forgetting that the government of the countries of origin has their share of the blame.

Let us see why

The maltreatments and abuses on migrant domestic workers is as an offshoot of Hong Kong policies that have become increasingly anti-migrant over the years.

Two such policies are often mentioned.

The first is the so-called two-week rule, which requires migrant workers to leave Hong Kong within 14 days after their contracts are terminated ahead of time.

It  is the two-week rule  that she sees as the biggest bane of migrant workers.

Under this policy, a domestic worker who loses her job has only two weeks to remain in Hong Kong. If she chooses to use the time to look for another employer, she is still not allowed to stay. She has to leave the territory, and wait for the employment visa to be issued within the next six to eight weeks. That means being jobless for about 3 months, and paying hefty agency fees all over again. This rule has effectively silenced many migrant workers, especially those who are desperate to hold onto their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions are.

Also a heartbreaker for migrant workers is the one that allows employers to virtually terminate work contracts at will. Under Hong Kong laws, either worker or employer may terminate their contract for whatever reason, by simply giving a month’s notice to the other.

As to be expected, it is the employer who usually cuts the contract because domestic workers are often too saddled with debts to even think of this as an option. The employer also has the choice of giving a month’s salary in lieu of notice, so the worker could be sent packing immediately.

Lacking job security and fearful of being sent back home prematurely, migrant workers often find themselves having to bite the bullet just to keep their jobs. Sulistyaningsih's may have been an extreme case, but there are many others willing to bend over backwards just so they are not given the sack.

Compounding the workers’ woes is the long-standing problem with unconscionable, even illegal, placement fees charged by recruitment agencies, which both the host Hong Kong government and the sending countries have abetted.

 The second is the one that compels all foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to live with their employers.

These twin policies have caused untold suffering to many FDWs in Hong Kong. It  is the two-week rule  that she sees as the biggest bane of migrant workers.

Under this policy, a domestic worker who loses her job has only two weeks to remain in Hong Kong. If she chooses to use the time to look for another employer, she is still not allowed to stay. She has to leave the territory, and wait for the employment visa to be issued within the next six to eight weeks. That means being jobless for about 3 months, and paying hefty agency fees all over again. This rule has effectively silenced many migrant workers, especially those who are desperate to hold onto their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions are.

Equally forbidding for migrant workers is the one that allows employers to virtually terminate work contracts at will. Under Hong Kong laws, either worker or employer may terminate their contract for whatever reason, by simply giving a month’s notice to the other.

As to be expected, it is the employer who usually cuts the contract because domestic workers are often too saddled with debts to even think of this as an option. The employer also has the choice of giving a month’s salary in lieu of notice, so the worker could be sent packing immediately.

Lacking job security and fearful of being sent back home prematurely, migrant workers often find themselves having to bite the bullet just to keep their jobs. Sulistyaningsih's may have been an extreme case, but there are many others willing to bend over backwards just so they are not given the sack.

Compounding the workers’ woes is the long-standing problem with unconscionable, even illegal, placement fees charged by recruitment agencies, which both the host countries government and the sending countries have abetted. [ rappler.com/move-ph/balikbayan/48649-migrant-workers-abuse-hong-kong-government-policies]

Recruitment agency's part of the blame

Abuses of Migrant Domestic Workers in HK and elsewhere was originated by POLO policy implemented ten years ago by the then Labor Secretary Marianito Roque, invoking the oft-repeated excuse that workers are better protected if they went through an employment agency, took away this “direct hire” option. This resulted to a situation that everyone who files a new contract with the Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) are forced to course their documents through an agency, even if the parties know each other personally, and no outside help is needed for the transaction.

Pushed to the wall by the heavy placement fees by the recruitment agencies and the strict terms of their work contracts, it is easy to see why many migrant domestic workers hesitate to speak out when they find themselves in abusive situations. The workers are neck-deep in debt so they can pay for the absurdly high fees required by the recruitment agencies. And to make things worse, the government has relied on the agency in the protection of the workers’ right in the country of destination, something that is nemical to the interests of the money-lust of the agency.

Is there a solution to this dilemma?

The junking of these three policies may help in ammelioriment of migrant workers situation cannot be said to be a hundred percent solution. Only the abolition of labor export policies which is practically goadfing the workers into ‘forced labor’ or worse, a venue for human trafficking, a step that could only be realized by massive reforms in the socio-economic politics in the sending countries geared to creation of basic industries and creation of significant agrarian reforms to give the workers enough earnings to give the families a chance for a decent, dignified human life.