Disco Bay boarding house raided
Posted by malka (172 days ago)
Depends what the breach was/were. If for overstaying, that is not the employer's fault once a contract is over, they inform Immi, who knows if the helper gets on a plane home?
If they are caught overstaying, is jail automatic?
Presumably any visa holder overstaying/without proper visa will be asked to leave and if they don't do it voluntarily then deportation is the only recourse. Detention may be part of the process since once out of contract they are technically homeless and how do you apply bail or other measures that could work for other visa holders?
Per the govt only breach of 2 conditions merit criminal prosecution:
"Under prevailing policy, an FDH should only provide full-time, live-in domestic services at his/her employer's residence and to serve the number of members of the employer's household as stated in the Standard Employment Contract (the Contract) (ID407). It is specified in Clause 4(a) of the Contract that an FDH should only perform domestic duties for the employer as listed in the "Schedule of Accommodation and Domestic Duties" (the Schedule) attached to the Contract. Clause 4(b) of the Contract provides that the FDH shall not take up, and shall not be required by the employer to take up, any other employment, including part-time domestic duties, with any other person. Clause 4(c) makes it clear that Clauses 4(a) and (b) will form part of the conditions of stay to be imposed on the FDH by the Immigration Department upon the FDH's admission to work in Hong Kong under the Contract. It is also clearly stipulated that a breach of the conditions of stay will render the helper and/or any aider and abettor liable to criminal prosecution."
Can't see anything about overstaying as being part of contract, so penalty comes under general visa conditions of overstaying? Pardon my ignorance.
Posted by Designmgr (172 days ago)
Depends on the arrangement. For example, a flat can be rented by one or more people and used on their non duty days.
Many helpers (pre 2004 employed) can legally live out. Nothing wrong there.
But generally speaking, the average new hire cannot live out.
So lot's of grey area's.
So you will have to prove (have fun doing this) that the 'non-eligible- helper was living out.
They may say: "today is my day off, and I'm spending it with friends". Have fun prosecuting that one.
If I were an employer and they came to me, I would just say the day you arrested her was her day off. She would also concur and now what do you have? nothing.
They would say 'but her clothes and stuff is there'. I would say; 'Are you sure its all hers and not shared with others?' or 'so, she keeps her stuff there for storage and use on her days off'. And as her employer, I determine, not you, what her days off are.
and again...they got nothing..
The authorities would have to investigate and even perform surveilance to prove otherwise...no one likes this approach though ;)
note about the boarding house...get a pre 2003 live out domestic helper to sign the lease..others contribute to the rent in cash...and its merely a stay out on our days off place...even if a 'surveilance tape' shows you are there for several days...(as long as its not every day for weeks)...then your just on vacation. or split your time among more than one location throughout the month. just sayin..
But as a disclaimer, I certainly do not support illegal activity, and would not encourage it....cause like stealing candy from a baby, or peeing on a small domestic animal...its just plain wrong... ;)
Posted by malka (172 days ago)
If the breach was living out illegally, then Immi can go to the employer's home to check where helper is living (and look for evidence of it).
If questioned and both are found lying under oath, then expect more trouble in that expat paradise.
Have heard that raids are quite common recently DB is a popular spot - maybe easier to block exits - wonder why? Hearing Freddie Mercury now .....Under pressure, under pressure.....
Some years ago, overstayers of prematurely terminated contracts (not common among full contracts) were reported in high numbers following a Legco inquiry, after which Immi tightened the monitoring and penalties.
Related to other complaints about those breaking contracts early, agency malfeasance and govt taking measures?
Posted by Designmgr (172 days ago)
You hit the proverbial 'nail on the head' Malka,
There are so many in one centralized location. They don't have to investigate the 'live outs'...there are enough in the 'over-stay' arena to keep it fruitful just by playing the numbers. So if you net enough at one location, there will be the obvious ones to pursue.
And those are open-shut easy to deal with.
And their actions have sent a 'mild warning' to others, and everyone with a still vested interest in living and working in HK are put on notice without getting nasty. And they clean out those who are not legal.
Posted by Susie1 (172 days ago)
Discovery Bay has been raided by Immi a few time in the past few years. Helpers blatantly advertise on their local forum for part time or live out work, so easy to do a swoop sometimes and catch a load. Many helpers think that because DB is an island they can get away with it, and imm are not likely to find out.
There are illegal boarding houses, not only in some of the DB tower blocks, but in Nim Shui Wan, near the Marina club, and many helpers live over in Peng Chau illegally.
I wish people would learn never to employ a live out, or part time helper, and those that do, well I hope Immigration throw the book at them. There are more thefts from people who employ a part time helper, and mostly they can't do anything about it, as they shouldn't be employing the PT helper in the first place, so the helper gets away with petty theft as well time after time, also a part time illegal helper is not insured when working at a home she isn't contracted to work in.
Much better to employ a part time helper from one of the legal agencies such as Merrymaids, at least you are protected if anything gets stolen, and you do not have to have them living in.
Posted by hkwatcher (84 days ago)
He said workers should be “very cautious” and not be swayed by offers to live out. “They should insist that under the law, they should be in the residence of their employers. They are their employers’ responsibility. Drivers are commonly affected; they should remind their employers that they should remain within the premises of their employer’s residence,” he said. - See more at: http://hongkongnews.com.hk/six-stay-out-filipinas-arrested/#sthash.0ySJmPqj.dpuf
The above statement is SUCH a hypocrisy from the HK Govt!
Who was arrested? The stay out workers!
Why do the employers not be held to the same standard? Are the employers even going to see the inside of the police station? I doubt it. Will they be deported? No way.
A double standard:One for the helper and one for the employer.
Posted by gdep (84 days ago)
NOt sure why the "live-in" rule was established at the first place. given such small apartments in HK.. it seems ridiculous.. if an helper or a group of helpers can get legal outside accommodation then whats the issue??
Posted by punter (84 days ago)
There are some valid concerns about prostitution and vagrancy. I personally think these concerns are trumped by the problems that has recently come out (abuse, etc.). Living in should be elective.
Posted by zackchak (84 days ago)
I wonder if the government will crack down on employers signing contracts and allowing the domestic helper to live out and work part time to justify not having any leeway on the live out rule