OPINION: Employers have no business turning a worker’s resignation into a public spectacle

An employer recently took to social media to complain about a household worker who allegedly left after receiving her first month’s salary without saying goodbye or explaining why she was leaving.

In the post, the employer described the kasambahay as having arrived with a smile and appearing happy and willing to work, only to leave after a month. The post included several photographs showing the worker’s face, effectively identifying her to everyone who came across the complaint.

What makes the post particularly striking is that the employer did not accuse the worker of stealing anything, neglecting her duties, or committing any other offense. Based on the account shared, her supposed offense was leaving after a month of employment without explaining her decision.

We do not know what happened inside that household. We have only heard the employer’s version, so we cannot conclude that the worker was mistreated or that the employer did anything wrong.

Perhaps the employer felt frustrated after spending time and resources hiring and training someone who left after just a month. Perhaps the frustration also came from the worker’s failure to give proper notice or communicate her decision to leave. Both are understandable concerns, although neither has been confirmed.

Is it a public notice?

In fairness, the kasambahay could have handled her departure more professionally. If she was unhappy with the arrangement or had decided she no longer wanted the job, communicating that decision would have been the more responsible thing to do. An employer who suddenly loses a household worker is understandably inconvenienced, particularly when arrangements have to be made to find a replacement.

The original post also did not make clear whether the worker was hired through a recruitment agency or through an informal arrangement. The employer did mention being willing to send her back to her agent, but the details of the employment arrangement remain unclear.

Perhaps the employer thought of the post as a sort of public notice, similar to announcements businesses make when someone is no longer connected with their organization. Such notices can serve a legitimate purpose, particularly when the public needs to know that a former employee is no longer authorized to represent a company or transact on its behalf.

But that does not appear to be the situation described in this post. There was no mention of the worker continuing to represent the household or conducting transactions in the employer’s name.

And even if the intention was simply to warn others, was publishing her face really necessary?

An employee’s failure to communicate professionally does not give an employer permission to publicly humiliate that person.

A kasambahay is not a possession

An employer may be disappointed when someone leaves without notice. But employing someone does not give you ownership over that person’s time, choices, or identity. A kasambahay is an employee, not a possession. She has the right to leave an employment arrangement, subject to applicable labor rules. She also deserves dignity and privacy, even after she stops working for you.

Social media is not a public complaints desk where employers can post someone’s face and invite strangers to pass judgment. Whatever the employer’s intentions, publicly exposing a former worker can subject her to ridicule, harassment, and unwanted attention.

The Philippines has the Batas Kasambahay, which protects domestic workers from abuse and harassment and recognizes their right to privacy. The Data Privacy Act also provides safeguards for personal information, although its application depends on the circumstances and applicable exemptions.

If an employee has committed an offense, there are proper channels for addressing it. Public shaming should not be the default response to an employment disagreement.

You can hire someone to work in your home, but you cannot claim ownership over that person. And you certainly do not acquire the right to put their face on the internet just because they chose to walk away.

That’s the point.