返回列表 發帖

菲傭工人可否用會所設施

剛剛在會所看見2個菲傭在會所用餐,本人覺得奇怪為何工人可以享用會所。詢問會所職員話只要有卡就可以。舊時住將中,工人只可出入會所,便不能使用會所。如果是這樣, 她們可以邀請一班人一齊用會所。
大家有什麼意見?

回復 1# qm4l
如果菲佣有天晋会所卡(不是OCTOUPUS),好难吾准。

TOP

顧主有俾卡(with full access)就得。
認卡唔認人,況且菲籍人士都可以係業主或租客。

TOP

本帖最後由 papa 於 2014-9-28 14:24 編輯

今日下午13:30経過I期Club House見到大大話話至少30(?)個菲傭使用BBQ場、看情況人數有不断
増加的可能性、在離開時也聴到有住客投訴菲傭使用Clud House問題、本人並非反對菲傭使用
Club House、但如此大量加上大都従外面進入本屋苑的是有必要正視、首先要解決的是控制毎個
BBQ爐的使用人數、然後大家可以理性地討論菲傭使用Club House的睇法以便検討使用守則。

注:大部分都入黎菲傭都無用Octpus Card的

TOP

本帖最後由 qm4l 於 2014-9-28 16:31 編輯

有無向會所職員反影, 不過他們認卡唔認人。基本上沒有主客之分,最好在業委會提出討論

TOP

well it is difficult for the club house staff to identify whether they are domestic helper or a resident that looks like a domestic helper (which if wrongly identifiy will be a great embarrasment for them)....thats may be the reason of 認卡唔認人...

there may also be some local domestic helper, so difficult to tell who is who.

or even if the user are domestic helper but the owner allow them to use the clubhouse, there is no way we can object this, given their rights.

TOP

今日下午13:30経過I期Club House見到大大話話至少30(?)個菲傭使用BBQ場、看情況人數有不断
増加的可能性、 ...
papa 發表於 2014-9-28 14:13



我今日出門口見到呢個情況 成班旅行團咁 10幾人到處影相 我都即時告知保安 希望佢地跟進她們是否住客 定係阿mum 唔係屋企 帶班朋友上去開party... 如屬實請告知該戶住客...

故勿論 是否住客俾 full access佢入會所與否 問題真係可以討論下 應否比她們使用 及她們是否應該先登記資料... 我們也有guest list 喇 !

TOP

反而我尋日around 5:00PM見一大群over10人的big6响商場入口操兵咁進入一期。

TOP

今日下午13:30経過I期Club House見到大大話話至少30(?)個菲傭使用BBQ場、看情況人數有不断
増加的可能性、 ...
papa 發表於 2014-9-28 14:13


菲傭有住戶證就可使用會所, 可考慮限定每張住戶證可邀請訪客人數, 如10人
不過其實都解決不了問題, 一張唔夠, 問其他菲傭朋友借卡就得......

比唔比住戶證菲傭, 係業主自己要思考既問題

TOP

菲傭有住戶證就可使用會所, 可考慮限定每張住戶證可邀請訪客人數, 如10人
不過其實都解決不了問題, 一張 ...
jjboy1 發表於 2014-10-1 12:04



agree.

TOP

天晉2收樓時,職員提示可以選擇菲傭進入會所權限。
附件: 您需要登錄才可以下載或查看附件。沒有帳號?註冊

TOP

本帖最後由 papa 於 2014-10-1 23:44 編輯

可以出問券咨詢業主是否接立本屋苑住戸的菲傭帯同非本屋苑住的菲傭進入Club House、
問題就是問題是要解決的、否則Club House變成傭工集中地大家也不想見到、
希望大家要正面面対、及促請業委成員踉進此問題。

TOP

咁搞法好影響其他住戶使用權利, 真正業主都唔想同人爭設施用
其實要思考下 1. 非業主親屬使用權限, 2. 限制訪客人數

TOP

I understand that there are two types of "rights" re Octopus access card (for W1) - one is full resident status which enables the holder to enter, and more importantly, to "reserve" various facilities within the clubhouse. The other one is "access only" which gives access to respective tower, as well as clubhouse.

Responding to the incident where the maids are using the bbq facilities, we are not sure if the concerned maid was "permitted" by her master and "reserved" the bbq place for the party; or; the master granted her maid "resident" status at the time he/she applied the Octopus for the maid. Until such fact is known, any discussion would be biased.

While I see the need for the maids to take the kids into the clubhouse (access-only status is more than enough imho), I am against anyone who "permit" their maids to reserve facilities for their own enjoyment. Afterall, they are paid to work here, not to enjoy (or compete with us for enjoying) the clubhouse.

I think the MO can now run a sanity check as to who has given "resident" status to their maids and ask those owners to change it back to "access only". Do you guys think it is feasible? Thoughts welcome.

TOP

咁搞法好影響其他住戶使用權利, 真正業主都唔想同人爭設施用
其實要思考下 1. 非業主親屬使用權限, 2. 限制 ...
kamwong1792 發表於 2014-12-9 10:48



    呢樣真, 即係唔係想歧視佢地, 但佢地只係黎打工, 唔係住客. 只係工作人員都用, 本身都怪怪地
會所原意應該係比住客用, 否則唔通裝修工人又比佢用會所咩

TOP

返回列表