Six-month ban for non-resident workers

THE Executive Council announced changes to the six-month ban for non-resident workers, but the extent of the amendments was smaller that some had expected. Introduced in 2010 as part of the new law on imported labor, the ban is applied when a contract of a non-resident worker is terminated before its completion and the Human Resources Office decides that there was just cause.
This rule was strongly criticized by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and by human rights reports issued by the U.S. government. Both mentioned that the six-month ban illustrates a case of discrimination against migrant workers. After some public uproar, the Secretary for Economy and Finance Francis Tam hinted towards the end of 2011 that the government was considering relaxing the ban on allowing non-resident workers to change jobs immediately if they keep on working in the same industry.
That seems to be what is about to happen now. It is being proposed by the government that non-resident workers are not subject to the six-month ban when the contract is terminated by mutual agreement, their work permit is canceled, or the worker is dismissed by the employer without just cause or quits on their own initiative with just cause. In those cases, workers are entitled to work during the following six months in an identical work category to the one that was authorized in the previous work permit.
The interpretation of the Human Resources Office on the Law for the Employment of Non-Resident Workers was reportedly stricter when the bill was introduced. According to numbers provided by the Immigration Department of the Public Security Police, between April 11 and October 11 2011, a total of 1,636 non-resident workers saw their work permits (known as ‘blue cards’) canceled and were subjected to the six-month ban. This meant that nine people were expelled daily from Macau (on average) during those six months. Migrant associations said recently that not so many “blue card” holders are being affected by the ban. With the need for human resources on the rise, the authorities are now relaxing the application of the rule.
One can understand that the government didn’t have discriminatory purposes in mind when the ban was introduced. It serves to punish workers who fail to keep their contracts. Since they are “non-resident” workers, they don’t have the right to reside, so they are banned because they were not competent enough, or they didn’t adequately meet their responsibilities.
In theory this may be good, but in practice it’s poor. In the “real world”, the decision to ban workers brings serious consequences to the lives of many
hard-working “blue-card” holders. It’s the Human Resources Office that decides whether the termination of a contract had just cause or not. This means that an administrative decision may lead a worker to be ousted for at least six months. Moreover it’s questionable that decisions with such far-reaching consequences are taken by an administrative body not subject to judicial review. Of course the worker can complain to the Labor Affairs Bureau, but few do that, since they only have ten days to leave Macau before they “overstay” (and are forced to pay a fine for each day they remain illegally).
I don’t doubt the good intentions of the Human Resources Office but what happens in the “real world” is that many Filipino and Indonesian workers (to mention the two larger communities affected) are banned, and if they want to return after six months (many do), they need to pay large amounts of money to agencies that are unregulated with practices near enough to human trafficking.
Wouldn’t it be better to scrap the six-month ban and provide information to employers in case they intend to hire a non-resident worker who’s been fired with just cause? This way, it would be up to them to decide whether to hire or not. And wouldn’t it also be better to rethink the “non resident” law? I know of cases of people who have worked in Macau for 15 years and are “non-residents”. Where do they reside then? Macau is small and not all can be permanent residents. But the right to non-permanent residency should be extended, as happens in Hong Kong.
Macau could (and should) be more generous.
(in MDT)