工作签证 想去加国做住家保姆
- 主题发起人 生态美
- 发布时间 2008-02-27
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
寄信都没用的，我跟我的朋友都寄了N封了，人家根本都不看，都是系统自动回复的。再一个我特别不喜欢称呼人家为菲佣，那我们是什么？“中佣”吗？中国人的不团结是出了名的，在这个论坛里我就领教了。把我骂得狗血喷头的人，现在也着急了。
寄信都没用的，我跟我的朋友都寄了N封了，人家根本都不看，都是系统自动回复的。再一个我特别不喜欢称呼人家为菲佣，那我们是什么？“中佣”吗？中国人的不团结是出了名的，在这个论坛里我就领教了。把我骂得狗血喷头的人，现在也着急了。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
现在事实摆在眼前，政府的RED TAPE大家也都领教了，或许唯一有点希望的就是大家要团结起来，别管你是递申请了还是没递，这个不重要，没递申请的谁能保证到你递时，审理的时间就能缩短，递了的谁能保证过两、三个月PR就拿到手了，谁都不敢说这种话。关键是重在参与，如果只有几个人在那蹦哒，没有人会答理你，但一旦形成规模，政府不可能置至不理，起码让他们知道我们对此表示不满，平等自主的权力都是自己争取的，没有人会站在他的位置上替你着想嘀
现在事实摆在眼前，政府的RED TAPE大家也都领教了，或许唯一有点希望的就是大家要团结起来，别管你是递申请了还是没递，这个不重要，没递申请的谁能保证到你递时，审理的时间就能缩短，递了的谁能保证过两、三个月PR就拿到手了，谁都不敢说这种话。关键是重在参与，如果只有几个人在那蹦哒，没有人会答理你，但一旦形成规模，政府不可能置至不理，起码让他们知道我们对此表示不满，平等自主的权力都是自己争取的，没有人会站在他的位置上替你着想嘀
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
别啥激动啊~~~~~
菲佣在我的想法里是她们的吃苦耐劳和团结。MM想哪去了？无谓在一个称呼上执着啊。巩且我们来这里一个大大标题写着住家保姆，不就是来当保姆的吗？急啥？开没开始讨论呢，气氛就开始紧张了。
别啥激动啊~~~~~
菲佣在我的想法里是她们的吃苦耐劳和团结。MM想哪去了？无谓在一个称呼上执着啊。巩且我们来这里一个大大标题写着住家保姆，不就是来当保姆的吗？急啥？开没开始讨论呢，气氛就开始紧张了。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
保姆是一种工作，佣人这个词汇我觉得在现在这个文明社会就是对人的一种贬低。我从来没觉得自己有多么的高傲，我也从来不避讳跟别人说我是做保姆的，但我不会说我是做佣人的，肯定MM们也不会这么说吧。学会尊重是起码的礼貌。人不能随波逐流要有自己的间接和主见。仅属个人意见，欢迎批评指导。
保姆是一种工作，佣人这个词汇我觉得在现在这个文明社会就是对人的一种贬低。我从来没觉得自己有多么的高傲，我也从来不避讳跟别人说我是做保姆的，但我不会说我是做佣人的，肯定MM们也不会这么说吧。学会尊重是起码的礼貌。人不能随波逐流要有自己的间接和主见。仅属个人意见，欢迎批评指导。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
这里人称保姆Nanny, 这样在乎，嗨，不累么？
不想把话题变得激烈针对。。。
这里人称保姆Nanny, 这样在乎，嗨，不累么？
不想把话题变得激烈针对。。。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
毕竟这个叫法是好多年了，相信大部分人自己并没有感情意识在里面。虽然我不会用这个说法，别人如果这样称呼我也许会感到心堵，但我不是敏感的人，感到不快也是一闪而过，不会在头脑里有清晰的反应。但我知道敏感的人都是聪明的人，羡慕。
现在在这个关键的时候就不要先理论这个了。毕竟谁都没有错。好不容易有两个热血人。
从去年9月我就有为我们的不合理待遇讨个说法的念头，因为我有和政府打交道的经历， 知道他们心底里是怎样对待保姆的。结果大部分的人的是事不关己，高高挂起，有的认为自己快了，没有必要来跟我们搅混水了，有的认为自己还早，到了自己申请的时候就是个例外了。结果呢，有谁例外了？有谁知道自己的等待还有几天？ 几年？
我当时真是心凉凉的。我开始自己搜一些信息，我羡慕菲律宾人，虽然说林子大了什么鸟都有，有的菲律宾保姆的确是给了某些雇主一些借口，把保姆说得一无是处，说我们的不合理待遇是我们自己找的。但如果每个菲律宾保姆移民了之后就把以前的伤口掩藏起来享受新生活，那还有现在的各种各样的菲律宾保姆协会吗？ 还有2010年4月1号的改变吗？
现在没有人要求姐妹们去做危险的事情，就是为你自己的前途，为你的家庭，为你的孩子去争取自己的权利，让我们为自己的权利和菲律宾人联合起来，壮大队伍，让呼声更强烈些，有什么危险让你却步呢？要知道 移民局针对的是整个住家保姆群体。
真是奇了怪了，你每天享受你的住家保姆生活，你每天享受你的无期等待，每天来看看别人的故事，那你应该没什么可抱怨的吧？
在这里我没有针对某个人，我指的是整个观望的群体，因为我想起了鲁迅笔下八国联军杀中国人时中国人的观望，外国人当时没有杀你就与你无关吗？ 最后真的无关了吗？ 所以请不要对号入座。
写了这么多废话，无非是希望你看了之后低头想想自己的利益，当群体需要你的时候能你能抬头让握有你命运大权的人能听到你的声音。
写给所有有名的，无名潜水的妹妹们。
毕竟这个叫法是好多年了，相信大部分人自己并没有感情意识在里面。虽然我不会用这个说法，别人如果这样称呼我也许会感到心堵，但我不是敏感的人，感到不快也是一闪而过，不会在头脑里有清晰的反应。但我知道敏感的人都是聪明的人，羡慕。
现在在这个关键的时候就不要先理论这个了。毕竟谁都没有错。好不容易有两个热血人。
从去年9月我就有为我们的不合理待遇讨个说法的念头，因为我有和政府打交道的经历， 知道他们心底里是怎样对待保姆的。结果大部分的人的是事不关己，高高挂起，有的认为自己快了，没有必要来跟我们搅混水了，有的认为自己还早，到了自己申请的时候就是个例外了。结果呢，有谁例外了？有谁知道自己的等待还有几天？ 几年？
我当时真是心凉凉的。我开始自己搜一些信息，我羡慕菲律宾人，虽然说林子大了什么鸟都有，有的菲律宾保姆的确是给了某些雇主一些借口，把保姆说得一无是处，说我们的不合理待遇是我们自己找的。但如果每个菲律宾保姆移民了之后就把以前的伤口掩藏起来享受新生活，那还有现在的各种各样的菲律宾保姆协会吗？ 还有2010年4月1号的改变吗？
现在没有人要求姐妹们去做危险的事情，就是为你自己的前途，为你的家庭，为你的孩子去争取自己的权利，让我们为自己的权利和菲律宾人联合起来，壮大队伍，让呼声更强烈些，有什么危险让你却步呢？要知道 移民局针对的是整个住家保姆群体。
真是奇了怪了，你每天享受你的住家保姆生活，你每天享受你的无期等待，每天来看看别人的故事，那你应该没什么可抱怨的吧？
在这里我没有针对某个人，我指的是整个观望的群体，因为我想起了鲁迅笔下八国联军杀中国人时中国人的观望，外国人当时没有杀你就与你无关吗？ 最后真的无关了吗？ 所以请不要对号入座。
写了这么多废话，无非是希望你看了之后低头想想自己的利益，当群体需要你的时候能你能抬头让握有你命运大权的人能听到你的声音。
写给所有有名的，无名潜水的妹妹们。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
我真是非常不明白.为啥我们属于担保移民?有相应的依据不?我们就是属于境内的担保人呀，虽然是家属团聚。北京给我回信每次都说让我耐心等待，最后一次说的详细点是在排队呢！还没处理到我家人！！！
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
很多年前,我会为保姆一词儿觉得敏感,现在真的无所谓了.因为我是自食其力.靠双手吃饭,没什么丢人的.当你把心里那道坎儿迈过去的时候,海阔天空.
很多年前,我会为保姆一词儿觉得敏感,现在真的无所谓了.因为我是自食其力.靠双手吃饭,没什么丢人的.当你把心里那道坎儿迈过去的时候,海阔天空.
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
http://www.iask.ca/news/canada/federalelection/2011/0414/66174.html
对於配偶、同居人、配偶的同居人、从属的子女等移民申请案，参政同盟也建议，设定最多12个月为审核期；任何未能於12个月的目标期内完成者，应另行交由资深官员重新覆核；拒绝案应一本公平、透明的基础等方式，才能加速审核申请案。
good news.
http://www.iask.ca/news/canada/federalelection/2011/0414/66174.html
对於配偶、同居人、配偶的同居人、从属的子女等移民申请案，参政同盟也建议，设定最多12个月为审核期；任何未能於12个月的目标期内完成者，应另行交由资深官员重新覆核；拒绝案应一本公平、透明的基础等方式，才能加速审核申请案。
good news.
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
再次声明我对保姆一词没有任何意见，我就是一个保姆，这个事实我跟所有认识我的人都这样介绍自己的。我也不是对什么称呼的斤斤计较，我说的是一种对他人的尊重。谢谢！
其实我更想说的是，希望大家能齐心协力的做出点事来，为我们自己多争取些利益，而不是观望观望再观望。
再次声明我对保姆一词没有任何意见，我就是一个保姆，这个事实我跟所有认识我的人都这样介绍自己的。我也不是对什么称呼的斤斤计较，我说的是一种对他人的尊重。谢谢！
其实我更想说的是，希望大家能齐心协力的做出点事来，为我们自己多争取些利益，而不是观望观望再观望。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
强烈支持LETMEBE同志的观点和看法，某些人真应该好好反省一下了。同样是保姆，怎么差距记这么大呢？
强烈支持LETMEBE同志的观点和看法，某些人真应该好好反省一下了。同样是保姆，怎么差距记这么大呢？
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
没有！后悔中。因为当初交移民申请之前，怕身份过期已经和雇主又签了一年的合同，当时觉得一年之内怎么都有结果了，当时显示处理是7个月。所以觉得没必要再办OWP。但这个政府信不得，眼见时间越拖越久，觉得他们不但不干事没进度，反而是退后。
至于你说的网上查的情况，你应该也能查到一些，他们会说什么时候收到了你的资料！是在过程中，但我觉得那个不算数，好像就是第一个阶段的信比较重要（就是同时会给你一个OWP，）拿到那个之后才算真正处理。
没有！后悔中。因为当初交移民申请之前，怕身份过期已经和雇主又签了一年的合同，当时觉得一年之内怎么都有结果了，当时显示处理是7个月。所以觉得没必要再办OWP。但这个政府信不得，眼见时间越拖越久，觉得他们不但不干事没进度，反而是退后。
至于你说的网上查的情况，你应该也能查到一些，他们会说什么时候收到了你的资料！是在过程中，但我觉得那个不算数，好像就是第一个阶段的信比较重要（就是同时会给你一个OWP，）拿到那个之后才算真正处理。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
做我们认为应该做的事，大家都不是未成年人，有行为判断能力，谁也忽悠不了谁，努力一下，成功了，幸运；不成功，继续做保姆直到移民，就当没有发生过，但至少知道自己努力了不会后悔，因为努力是想一个成功的结果。
依然感到幸运，因为无论怎样看我，但我敢肯定他们不会是我的敌人，她们不会盼望我失败。只要是我们这条船上的，有谁有和我不同的愿望呢？
去年我失望的退却了，因为看不到希望，我不想做无望的努力。但有些人经历了半年发现还是要走这条路，而且有更多的人认识到了，现在有菲律宾保姆找到了他们的协会，但协会要求我们自己组织，希望人数越多越好，还有的已经完成了稿件，要借助媒体的力量。我认为这个有可能成功，所以我一激动，写了一些言辞激烈的话。
我打算根据自己的经历提出一些要求，比如立法，强制雇主支付支票，更严格的合同和工资单，缴税，出了差错要追查雇主的责任，换雇主等待新的LMO和WORK PERMIT时间长，造成了保姆宁愿忍受也不换雇主，也就铸就了更多的ABUSE， 这些对我来说都是过去式了，但我还是要提出来，希望不会发生在新来的保姆身上。
根据我们的两年的PROGRAM ，我们强烈要求工作满两年后自动成为移民身份，或者孩子家人能先过来生活，否则时间越拖越长， 对谁都不公平，他们浪费了纳税人的钱还有理由对我们变相精神虐待，所以还是呼吁不论你是哪个阶段的姐妹们，为了自己，争取一下。
还是希望姐妹们能留下你的想法，让我们互相鼓励，互相支持，直到胜利。
做我们认为应该做的事，大家都不是未成年人，有行为判断能力，谁也忽悠不了谁，努力一下，成功了，幸运；不成功，继续做保姆直到移民，就当没有发生过，但至少知道自己努力了不会后悔，因为努力是想一个成功的结果。
依然感到幸运，因为无论怎样看我，但我敢肯定他们不会是我的敌人，她们不会盼望我失败。只要是我们这条船上的，有谁有和我不同的愿望呢？
去年我失望的退却了，因为看不到希望，我不想做无望的努力。但有些人经历了半年发现还是要走这条路，而且有更多的人认识到了，现在有菲律宾保姆找到了他们的协会，但协会要求我们自己组织，希望人数越多越好，还有的已经完成了稿件，要借助媒体的力量。我认为这个有可能成功，所以我一激动，写了一些言辞激烈的话。
我打算根据自己的经历提出一些要求，比如立法，强制雇主支付支票，更严格的合同和工资单，缴税，出了差错要追查雇主的责任，换雇主等待新的LMO和WORK PERMIT时间长，造成了保姆宁愿忍受也不换雇主，也就铸就了更多的ABUSE， 这些对我来说都是过去式了，但我还是要提出来，希望不会发生在新来的保姆身上。
根据我们的两年的PROGRAM ，我们强烈要求工作满两年后自动成为移民身份，或者孩子家人能先过来生活，否则时间越拖越长， 对谁都不公平，他们浪费了纳税人的钱还有理由对我们变相精神虐待，所以还是呼吁不论你是哪个阶段的姐妹们，为了自己，争取一下。
还是希望姐妹们能留下你的想法，让我们互相鼓励，互相支持，直到胜利。
回复: 想去加国做住家保姆
我提出工作满两年后自动转成移民身份不是我一厢情愿，异想天开，有菲律宾保姆协会早为这个奋斗了十几年了，甚至在2010年4月1日条例修改后，当大部分保姆还在兴奋中的时候，就有白人律师写出了一针见血的文章，说当时的条例修改只不过是花言巧语，如果真的想保护住家保姆，就在住家保姆在加拿大落地时刻就是移民身份。请看下面这位律师的文章。
人家活得可是好好的，当时的审理时间还是只有10个月，还能为我们感到气不顺，何况我们自己身在其中，何况现在是没有任何理由的肆意延长我们的这种身份。做人不能气太多，但也不能没有气。
They just don’t make things like they used to.
For over a century, Canada has been actively recruiting domestic workers (now called live-in caregivers) to work for Canadian families in their homes. According to Professor Audrey Macklin, during the 19th century “[l]ive-in domestic service provided the least desirable type of legal employment open to women. Few [Canadians] were attracted to it, and most left it as soon as possible.” As a result, the “demand always exceeded the supply.”
Today, Canadians continue to refuse to toil as live-in caregivers but the demand for these workers remains high. With our growing elderly population, this demand is expected to increase exponentially in the next few years.
Caregiver advocates have been critical of the various recruitment models adopted by the Canadian government over the years. A recent campaign calls for a return to a model that existed until World War II, when single, white, British women made up the majority of foreign domestic workers recruited. These British women were admitted by immigration authorities as permanent residents. This only changed when the number of European women who were available to work in Canada decreased.
As foreigners from Asia and the Caribbean began dominating the pool of foreign domestic workers, a new recruitment model emerged. Immigration privileges were systematically clawed back to the point where, in 1973, workers were no longer afforded permanent residence before or after arriving in Canada.
After the failings of this recruitment model became known, the immigration department created yet another one. A policy known as Foreign Domestic Movement (FDM) was crafted in 1981 to admit foreign domestics as temporary workers while later affording them an opportunity to apply for permanent residence if certain conditions were met. The department tweaked this “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model over the years, but its failings persisted. In 1992, as part of the effort to address those failings, FDM was incorporated into immigration regulations and renamed the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Despite the smoke and mirrors, however, the “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model was unchanged, and the problems associated with it persisted.
Until recently, little was done by the governments of the day (federal and provincial) to address the persistent problems foreign caregivers experienced. These problems were not exclusively the result of abusive employers and unscrupulous recruiters. Indeed, many had to do with the difficulty of navigating a complex bureaucratic maze of requirements and procedures contained in supposedly helpful resources, including the immigration department’s own instruction manuals, application guides and website information, and inconsistent advice from call-centre agents. This complex system caught many live-in caregivers unawares and, often through no fault of the caregiver, the outcome was an unfair or inhumane refusal.
On April 1 this year, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced the implementation of a series of changes to the LCP that were intended to give better protection to foreign caregivers from abuse and exploitation, and to provide them with a fair and equitable path toward permanent residence. On Aug. 18, more changes affecting live-in caregivers were announced, and are to come into force on April 1, 2011.
Despite the rhetoric, however, these changes do not in any way upend the “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model that has failed many foreign caregivers for many years. For as long as this flawed recruitment model remains intact, unfair and inhumane outcomes will continue. Moreover, many of these workers will continue to accept work under conditions that fall far below acceptable Canadian standards; many will work with little complaint.
Foreign caregivers will continue to arrive in Canada to work as indentured labourers. For as long as Canada keeps its doors open, thousands will desperately wait in line for the opportunity. To many, our Live-in Caregiver Program represents their only hope of immigrating to Canada and leaving behind a life of abject poverty.
Under the current recruitment model, caregivers will continue to be separated from their spouses and children for three to five years. Caregivers, therefore, do almost anything to avoid delay in getting through this nightmarish program. They will continue to accept substandard working conditions, continue to largely remain silent about abuse and exploitation, and only in very extreme circumstances will they have the desire to expose abuses.
Changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program are meaningless unless the main source of the problem ― the recruitment model ― is changed. In particular, live-in caregivers should be admitted to Canada as permanent residents. This approach has been called for by caregiver advocates. It has also been called for by scholars. And it has been called for by the Canadian people, whose voices can be heard through their representatives in the House of Commons. It is not “radical,” as it is the same recruitment model once offered to domestic workers ― mostly single, white, British women ― recruited to Canada up until World War II.
If the government is genuine in its desire to protect foreign caregivers and afford them a fair and equitable path to permanent residence, it is time to adopt the “permanent resident upon arrival” model of old.
我提出工作满两年后自动转成移民身份不是我一厢情愿，异想天开，有菲律宾保姆协会早为这个奋斗了十几年了，甚至在2010年4月1日条例修改后，当大部分保姆还在兴奋中的时候，就有白人律师写出了一针见血的文章，说当时的条例修改只不过是花言巧语，如果真的想保护住家保姆，就在住家保姆在加拿大落地时刻就是移民身份。请看下面这位律师的文章。
人家活得可是好好的，当时的审理时间还是只有10个月，还能为我们感到气不顺，何况我们自己身在其中，何况现在是没有任何理由的肆意延长我们的这种身份。做人不能气太多，但也不能没有气。
They just don’t make things like they used to.
For over a century, Canada has been actively recruiting domestic workers (now called live-in caregivers) to work for Canadian families in their homes. According to Professor Audrey Macklin, during the 19th century “[l]ive-in domestic service provided the least desirable type of legal employment open to women. Few [Canadians] were attracted to it, and most left it as soon as possible.” As a result, the “demand always exceeded the supply.”
Today, Canadians continue to refuse to toil as live-in caregivers but the demand for these workers remains high. With our growing elderly population, this demand is expected to increase exponentially in the next few years.
Caregiver advocates have been critical of the various recruitment models adopted by the Canadian government over the years. A recent campaign calls for a return to a model that existed until World War II, when single, white, British women made up the majority of foreign domestic workers recruited. These British women were admitted by immigration authorities as permanent residents. This only changed when the number of European women who were available to work in Canada decreased.
As foreigners from Asia and the Caribbean began dominating the pool of foreign domestic workers, a new recruitment model emerged. Immigration privileges were systematically clawed back to the point where, in 1973, workers were no longer afforded permanent residence before or after arriving in Canada.
After the failings of this recruitment model became known, the immigration department created yet another one. A policy known as Foreign Domestic Movement (FDM) was crafted in 1981 to admit foreign domestics as temporary workers while later affording them an opportunity to apply for permanent residence if certain conditions were met. The department tweaked this “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model over the years, but its failings persisted. In 1992, as part of the effort to address those failings, FDM was incorporated into immigration regulations and renamed the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Despite the smoke and mirrors, however, the “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model was unchanged, and the problems associated with it persisted.
Until recently, little was done by the governments of the day (federal and provincial) to address the persistent problems foreign caregivers experienced. These problems were not exclusively the result of abusive employers and unscrupulous recruiters. Indeed, many had to do with the difficulty of navigating a complex bureaucratic maze of requirements and procedures contained in supposedly helpful resources, including the immigration department’s own instruction manuals, application guides and website information, and inconsistent advice from call-centre agents. This complex system caught many live-in caregivers unawares and, often through no fault of the caregiver, the outcome was an unfair or inhumane refusal.
On April 1 this year, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced the implementation of a series of changes to the LCP that were intended to give better protection to foreign caregivers from abuse and exploitation, and to provide them with a fair and equitable path toward permanent residence. On Aug. 18, more changes affecting live-in caregivers were announced, and are to come into force on April 1, 2011.
Despite the rhetoric, however, these changes do not in any way upend the “temporary to possibly permanent” recruitment model that has failed many foreign caregivers for many years. For as long as this flawed recruitment model remains intact, unfair and inhumane outcomes will continue. Moreover, many of these workers will continue to accept work under conditions that fall far below acceptable Canadian standards; many will work with little complaint.
Foreign caregivers will continue to arrive in Canada to work as indentured labourers. For as long as Canada keeps its doors open, thousands will desperately wait in line for the opportunity. To many, our Live-in Caregiver Program represents their only hope of immigrating to Canada and leaving behind a life of abject poverty.
Under the current recruitment model, caregivers will continue to be separated from their spouses and children for three to five years. Caregivers, therefore, do almost anything to avoid delay in getting through this nightmarish program. They will continue to accept substandard working conditions, continue to largely remain silent about abuse and exploitation, and only in very extreme circumstances will they have the desire to expose abuses.
Changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program are meaningless unless the main source of the problem ― the recruitment model ― is changed. In particular, live-in caregivers should be admitted to Canada as permanent residents. This approach has been called for by caregiver advocates. It has also been called for by scholars. And it has been called for by the Canadian people, whose voices can be heard through their representatives in the House of Commons. It is not “radical,” as it is the same recruitment model once offered to domestic workers ― mostly single, white, British women ― recruited to Canada up until World War II.
If the government is genuine in its desire to protect foreign caregivers and afford them a fair and equitable path to permanent residence, it is time to adopt the “permanent resident upon arrival” model of old.
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
