FEDERATION OF ASIAN DOMESTIC WORKERS’ UNIONS IN H.K. (FADWU Organising Committee)
COALITION FOR MIGRANTS’ RIGHTS (CMR)
ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR-HK
ASIAN MIGRANT CENTRE

We, the domestic workers represented by the Federation of Asian Domestic Workers’ Unions (FADWU), the Coalition for Migrants’ Rights (CMR), and various partners, express the united position and strong solidarity among the Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Nepalese, Thai and all DWs in Hong Kong. We have ardently campaigned for the long overdue and greatly deserved recognition of our status, rights, welfare, interests, and dignity.

We are here today, 8 July 2009, to collectively express and show our indignation over the HK Labour and Welfare Department’s recommendation to exclude live-in domestic workers, the majority of whom are women and migrant, from the coverage of the proposed Statutory Minimum Wage (SMW) Law. This decision of the HK government to exclude us from the protection of the SMW law is yet another glaring proof of the recurring and methodical discrimination policy employed by the government in its treatment of one of the most vulnerable, most abused, most exploited sectors of the working force here in HK.

This exclusionary and discriminatory treatment is unacceptable and we guarantee that this shameless act of the HK government will be opposed each step of the way, both here in HK and internationally.

Let it be known far and wide, that HK, which prides itself of being a world-class, cosmopolitan city based on the rule of law, is using its laws to systematically discriminate against domestic workers, both foreign and its own people, by subjecting them to sub-standard treatment and institutionalizing slavery-like conditions.

Let it be known far and wide, that the government’s Labour and Welfare Department, which is supposedly the guarantor and protector of all workers’ rights and security, openly chose to side with employers’ groups in proclaiming that, “we want HELPERS who should be working round-the-clock, providing service-on-demand, performing multifarious tasks, 24 hours a day… and we want them cheap”.

Let it be known that when we, domestic workers, campaigned for the recognition of our status and rights as workers, and when we pushed for our rightful inclusion in the coverage of the SMW Law, the HK government’s Labour and Welfare Department chose to side with the employers’ groups in rejecting our inclusion, citing the following:

• “Distinctive working pattern of live-in domestic workers”: they say that DWs have to provide round-the-clock, unlimited, on-demand service that is dependent on the ‘prevailing needs of the employer’.
• “Enjoyment of in-kind benefits not available to non-live in workers” – they say employers provide “privileges” such as food, accommodation, medical treatment, passage from/to countries of origin which make DWs enjoy “a higher disposable income.”
• “Possible significant and far-reaching socio-economic ramifications” – they say that “bringing live in domestic workers, including FDHs, under the SMW could cause financial hardship to many families.”
• “Fundamental erosion of the FDH policy” – they say including DWs will necessitate the prescription of ‘standard working hours’ and the removal of the ‘live in’ requirement; they say “both of these would amount to a significant departure from the existing FDH policy, which has been put in place for good policy reasons and necessary immigration control;” they say limited working hours and alternative living arrangements will “dismantle the cornerstone of the policy of importing FDHs.”

We condemn the fundamental position of the HK government and Employers’ Association to defend and institutionalize a 20-year old “FDH policy” whose cornerstones are “immigration control” and the “good policy” of keeping DWs cheap, working round-the-clock, on unlimited working hours, providing on-demand service, and very limited protection.

1. On the “distinctive working pattern” – Joseph Law of the HK Employers’ Association said limiting DWs’ work hours is absurd; it is absurd to ensure that DWs, like all human beings, need 8 hours of sleep each day. He deems it absurd that workers in HK, including DWs, are entitled to the same international labour standards, especially 8 hours/day or a maximum of 48 hours/week.

What is more absurd – limiting DWs’ work hours to conform to international standards and enabling people to rest and sleep … or expecting and actually making us work 24 hours a day, providing service-on-demand, for ‘multifarious tasks’, and all for HK$6/hour?

What is more absurd – recognizing domestic workers as workers and applying labor laws and international standards without discrimination … or the imposition of slavery-like conditions to DWs who are mostly women?

Who is more absurd – DWs calling for equal treatment and recognition of our rights as women, as humans, and as workers … or the Employers’ Association which similarly advocated for the removal of maternity protection for DWs in 2000, and saying employers should be allowed to make pregnant DWs work even on the 9th month of pregnancy?

Who is more absurd – DWs calling for inclusion and equal treatment under the SMW Law … or the HK Labour and Welfare Department that promotes further limiting working hours for workers in HK (e.g. 5-day workweek), but denying DWs the same right to limited working hours, proper sleep, and protection from slavery-like conditions?

2. On “special in-kind benefits” – Domestic workers say it absurd for the Employers Association and the Labour and Welfare Department to even suggest that DWs, especially migrant domestic workers, are “privileged” and “accorded special treatment” in HK. On the contrary, MDWs are accorded special DISCIRMINATORY treatment. We have been discriminated against by the NCS/2-week rule policy. We have been excluded/discriminated against by the Race Discrimination Law. And now we have been excluded again in the SMW Law. What is “privileged” about these? The United Nations human rights bodies (CEDAW, CERD, ICESCR) have cited HK for these discriminatory policies against MDWs.

Are we not one of the most vulnerable, most abused, and most exploited women workers in HK? There is widespread underpayment of MDWs (over 40% of Indonesians and Nepalese); denial of statutory holidays (23% of all MDWs and over 66% of Indonesians), denial of weekly days off (20% of all MDWs and over 60% of Indonesians). Twenty-four percent (24%) are not given proper food and provided with adequate living space, and worse, we are even subjected to verbal and physical abuses. [AMC Baseline research, 2001 and 2004]

Foreign workers employed in other job categories are afforded significantly better benefits. Many of these benefits are specifically denied to DWs. The New Conditions of Stay (NCS) policy ensures that MDWs are denied of residency, job mobility, family right and other benefits enjoyed by other workers in HK.

3. On “possible significant and far-reaching socio-economic ramifications” – We did not realize that ‘enhancing social harmony’ was another burden DWs had to carry on our backs. The HK Labour Department and Employers’ Association – by proclaiming that DWs provide housekeeping, childcare, elderly care and ‘multifarious tasks’ round-the-clock, on-demand, on unlimited working hours, and all for less than HK$6/hour – institutionalizes the exploitation of DW as unpaid extensions of HK’s Social Welfare Department.

4. On “fundamental erosion of FDH policy” – Undeniably, the SMW Law ought to recognize the time dimension of work, and this will naturally require HK to change its treatment of MDWs – from modern-day slaves to legitimate workers. The LAbour Department, in our May 28 dialogue, acknowledged the government’s obligations under the ILO and UN to promote decent work and international labour standards. Why is moving away from slavery-like conditions and the exploitation and abuse of women and migrant workers “an erosion” of policy? Isn’t this in fact fulfilling the international obligations of HK?

There is nothing absurd or unreasonable about our demands. Indeed, we are calling the HK government and Employers’ Association to task. They have to live up to human rights and international labour standards. It is the obligation of the HK government to dismantle, NOT perpetuate, its decades-old, discriminatory and exploitative “FDH policy” of putting DWs and women migrants in slavery-like, abused and vulnerable position.

July 2009, Hong Kong

Federation of Asian Domestic Workers' Unions (FADWU Organising Committee): Filipino Domestic Workers' Union (FDWU), HK Domestic Workers General Union, Indonesian Migrant Workers Union (IMWU), Overseas Domestic Workers' Union-HK (ODWU), Thai Migrant Workers Union (TMWU), Union of Nepalese Domestic Workers (UNDW).

Coalition for Migrants' Rights (CMR): Far East Overseas Nepalese Association (FEONA), Filipino Domestic Workers' Union (FDWU), HK Domestic Workers General Union, Indonesian Migrant Workers Union (IMWU), Coalition of Indonesian Migrant Workers' Organisations in HK (KOTKIHO), Thai Migrant Workers Union (TMWU), Thai Women Association (TWA), Union of Nepalese Domestic Workers (UNDW), Association of Sri Lankans in HK, Indian Domestic Workers Association.

Alliance of Progressive Labor - HK (APL-HK)

Asian Migrant Centre (AMC)