elviajero Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Mike West said: I wanted an answer, but as usual all the trolls come out of hiding, who answered it? tell me I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 On 1/16/2018 at 1:19 PM, elviajero said: I did. NOPE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elviajero Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Mike West said: NOPE Sure about that! Your question, that you wrote two different ways, broken down. "Is is Thai law that forbids family members working together?" "Is it Thai law, ... that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ..." My answer was. On 11/01/2018 at 10:46 AM, elviajero said: There is no law forbidding family members working together. What don't you understand about the answer? " ... or is it just company policies that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ... " My answer was. On 11/01/2018 at 10:46 AM, elviajero said: Companies can choose to employ, or not employ, whoever they want. What don't you understand about the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachproperty Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, elviajero said: Sure about that! Your question, that you wrote two different ways, broken down. "Is is Thai law that forbids family members working together?" "Is it Thai law, ... that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ..." My answer was. What don't you understand about the answer? " ... or is it just company policies that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ... " My answer was. What don't you understand about the answer? He's lacking in the Basic comprehension skills we all possess. Or in other words "he's a TROLL" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West Posted January 18, 2018 Author Share Posted January 18, 2018 9 hours ago, elviajero said: Sure about that! Your question, that you wrote two different ways, broken down. "Is is Thai law that forbids family members working together?" "Is it Thai law, ... that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ..." My answer was. What don't you understand about the answer? " ... or is it just company policies that forbids family members of Thai nationals, working together? ... " My answer was. What don't you understand about the answer? haha you sound a bit butt hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West Posted January 18, 2018 Author Share Posted January 18, 2018 7 hours ago, beachproperty said: He's lacking in the Basic comprehension skills we all possess. Or in other words "he's a TROLL" haha says the prince of trolls, what answer have you provided? besides your opinion. I red carded you troll, you must leave the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB2 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 On 1/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, SteveB2 said: A few years ago... The Chonburi National Insurance Office cancelling my wife's National Insurance benefits and ordered me to sack her from my company that she has worked at for the last 10 years. They informed me that "the wife of a foreigner is not permitted to work in the company employing the foreigner" I thought this ruling strange, so I got my Bangkok Lawyer to ask for a formal clarification notice from the Thailand National Insurance Head office located in the Chaeng Wattana government complex. Not surprisingly, NI (HQ) stated in their official clarification notice that there is "no restriction for employing the wife of a foreigner in the same company". So... Back to the Chonburi National Insurance office to get them to reinstate my wife’s NI status and clear up the mess. However, the Chonburi NI Office big boss decided to stick his heals in a-la "No matter about CW clarification notice - we are Chonburi office - we can do what we want" OK - so back on the phone to my Bangkok legal team - "what’s the best way forward to sort this out" I asked them. The answer 'Take the Chonburi NI office to the labor court for breach of Thai labor law" So, I let the dogs loose and took the Thai NI office to the Chonburi labor court. Lots of feathers were ruffled in the Chonburi NI office by this action, which lead to our company being incessantly audited every week for a month or so by literally mini-bus loads of inspectors from many different government departments - but that's another story. End result - the Chonburi NI office 'settled the case on the Labor Court steps' and reinstated my wife’s NI status. The ruling also overturned the 'sack your wife' instructions, and she was reinstated working back in the company. Total legal costs were TH15K which I thought was not bad. Everything was all settled in under 30 days. Thai Labor courts do not mess about with decisions. They side very much on defending the rights and benefits of Thai workers even to the point of seeing another Thai government department at the behest of a Farang to do so. There are still those so blind they cannot see - or maybe eyes than cannot read - or Google they cannot use... I still have the legal clarification/interpretation issued by The National Insurance head office in Bangkok confirming the rights of women to work in the same company as their husbands even if he is a Farang director if anyone needs it. So below, for clarity and transparency in all its glory, are all the sections of Thai labor law pertaining to the rights of women who work in a Thai company. Enjoy Labour Protection Act of 1998 Section 15. A boss shall treat male and female employees equally with regard to employment for work, unless such treatment is not possible due to the characteristics or nature of the work. Section 16. A boss or a person who is a work chief, a work supervisor or a work inspector is not allowed to sexually harass an employee who is a female or a child. Section 38. A boss shall be prohibited from permitting female employees to perform any of the following work: (1) Mining work or construction work which must be done underground, under water, in a cave, in a tunnel or a shaft in a mountain, unless the characteristics of the work do not pose a hazard to the health or the body of the female employee. (2) Work which must be performed on a scaffold more than ten metres from the ground or more. (3) Production or transportation of explosives or inflammable materials. (4) Other work as prescribed in ministerial regulations. Section 39. A boss shall be prohibited from allowing a pregnant female employee to work between the hours of 22.00 hours and 06.00 hours, to work overtime, to work on holidays or to do any of the following work: (1) Work connected with vibrating machinery or engines. (2) Work which moves along or goes off together with a vehicle. (3) The work of lifting, toting, carrying with both hands, carrying suspended from the ends of a pole across the shoulder, carrying on the head, dragging or pushing a heavy object in excess of fifteen kilograms. (4) Work which is performed inside a ship. (5) Other work as prescribed in ministerial regulations. Section 40. When a boss lets a female employee work between the hours of 22.00 hours and 06.00 hours, and the Labour Inspection Officer is of the opinion that that work is hazardous to the health and safety of that woman, the Labour Inspection Officer shall report it to the Director-General or a person assigned by the Director-General for consideration and issuance of an order ordering the boss to change the hours of work or to reduce the hours of work as may be deemed appropriate, and the boss shall comply with the said order. Section 40. When a boss lets a female employee work between the hours of 22.00 hours and 06.00 hours, and the Labour Inspection Officer is of the opinion that that work is hazardous to the health and safety of that woman, the Labour Inspection Officer shall report it to the Director-General or a person assigned by the Director-General for consideration and issuance of an order ordering the boss to change the hours of work or to reduce the hours of work as may be deemed appropriate, and the boss shall comply with the said order. Section 41. A pregnant female employee shall have the right to take maternity leave of not more than ninety days per pregnancy. The leave days under paragraph one shall include the holidays which occur during the leave days. Section 42. When a pregnant female employee produces a medical certificate from a doctor of first class modem medicine stating that she is unable to continue to perform her existing duties, that employee shall have the right to ask the boss to change her existing duties temporarily before or after delivery, and the boss shall consider changing the work to work which is appropriate for that employee. Section 43. A boss shall be prohibited from terminating the employment of a female employee on the basis that she is pregnant. Section 59. A boss shall pay a wage to a female employee on maternity leave equal to the wage on a working day throughout the entire leave period, but the number of such leave days must not exceed forty five days. The original Thai Labour law act of 2541 is attached(Thai language) - a useful translation of the labour protection act 2541 is given online here Have a great day Thai_labour_protection_act_2541.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchsmile Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 On 1/13/2018 at 12:58 AM, Air Smiles said: Which uk companies have a policy to not employ more than 1 member of the same family? Read my post again and read the opening post. There is a big difference between the conclusion you've jumped to and what I wrote. Companies will have policies on the subject of "families (family members) or working together" which was the question asked. As an example, the first accounting firm I worked for, Coopers and Lybrand (now PWC), had such a policy. Not long after I joined a colleague moved departments as they got engaged to one of the more senior managers in the department. They were not allowed to work on the same audits to prevent conflicts of interest in their work. As another example, I frequently came across employment questionnaires asking if you are related to any persons currently employed by the company, and if so give details. One of the reasons again being to see if it would lead to any governance/ control risk issues. The policy isn't usually "not to employ more than one member of the same family" as you've interpreted it, but to ensure appropriate segregation of duties where it poses a risk in some form by them working together. Another related example, common for banks' senior personnel is to have to make regular declarations as to all share holdings and directorships of connected persons (spouses, companies controlled, parents, children etc), again to avoid conflicts of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.