Here you go: Google
From Ruken’s cite:
That’s 13.8 hours a day, seven days a week. I have no problem believing a full-time maid was being made to work that much, *especially *if she was a live-in maid - basically she would never be able to get away from work.
Oh and this little gem from not-so-aptly named truthSeeker2:
My eyes can not roll far back enough to give this statement the proper disdain it deserves, but anyway:
:rolleyes:
From the cite provided,
“According to the survey, the typical stay-at-home mom works almost 97 hours a week, spending 13.2 hours as a day-care teacher; 3.9 hours as household CEO; 7.6 hours as a psychologist; 14.1 hours as a chef; 15.4 as a housekeeper; 6.6 hours doing laundry; 9.5 hours as a PC-or-Mac operator; 10.7 hours as a facilities manager; 7.8 hours as a janitor and 7.8 hours driving the family”
Can we take away the teacher, CEO, psychologist, PC/Mac operator, driving and ‘facilities manager’ bits? Or is that included in what the maid does?
Although I have disagreed with some of your conclusions, I have to commend you on putting up very reasonable, thoughtful arguments in your posts… up until this point.
Of course it is possible for an employer to put forth unreasonable work requirements even if they aren’t physically present. One personal example from long ago: I worked as a stagehand in a theater. The boss gave me and three other people the task of totally cleaning every single wad of gum off of the floor and seats within a couple hours’ time. (I think it was three hours, but can’t remember for sure.) This theater had more than 3,000 seats and it had been probably years since this was last done. As you can imagine, removing a single piece of sticky gum can take 5 minutes if you can’t get it off cleanly on your first go.
The boss then left for a long lunch, and when he came back three hours later, he did an inspection. He of course found each of our sections to still have wads of gum in them, so he reamed us out.
Moral of the story: the boss left us with an impossible task and then left for three hours. The fact that he was gone didn’t mean we could mess around for two hours and 45 minutes.
As applied to this situation: if the employer of a housekeeper directs her to make every meal, go shopping for specific things each day, pick up the dry cleaning, drop off the library books, clean the shower every other day, have freshly laundered towels every day, etc. then the fact that the boss is absent during the workday means that the housekeeper still has an unmanageable amount of work to do. And if an employer lays out such an impossible amount of work each day, I’m sure that boss makes things very unpleasant if they aren’t accomplished.
(Note I’m not saying that I know for a fact that this is what Khobragade did, I’m simply saying that it makes sense that a worker can be overloaded with tasks even in the absence of their employer.)
Nice attempt at slipping in an insult there.
My mum did a lot of work to keep me clothed and fed, and I have at no point claimed it takes NO effort. I don’t agree that it takes 14 hours worth every day, nor would my mum.
I’ll grant that it isn’t impossible. It just seems very unlikely to me. I do all my own housework. I’ve lived with my sister in a western country when she managed a kid aged 3 and helped her do housework. More than 14 hours a day every day sounds like a fabrication to me.
Perhaps the maid should have filed a motion in US court to forbid Khobragade from filing a motion in India’s court. :rolleyes:
No - why in the world would you? Do you think the maid just ignores all that stuff just because she’s the maid? Mommy and Daddy aren’t around, remember? Someone is dealing with the kids, and - this may shock you - sometimes siblings argue and bicker about who watches what on the TV or if they can have a snack or what-not.
I don’t know why you find this so hard to believe. A full-time live-in maid would essentially be a mother-by-proxy. I’ve known families that had full-time live-in help, from when I was living in Hong Kong. The maids looked after the children like their own children, and the children loved them back something fierce…but that the maid found fulfillment from it and had a close relationship with the family doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a shitload of work.
You may want to ask your mom again about how easy she was supposed to find raising you (were you an only child?)
You are not seeing my perspective pal.
For ex. Say you are working as a diplomat in a unfriendly country and you get married to its citizen while being in office. Then your country will have valid reasons to look into your loyalties .
Yes, because an adult doing his own housekeeping & eating TV Dinners is *exactly *the same as taking care of a four-person family.
:rolleyes:
The cite you quoted provides roughly about 55 hours of work a week for a stay at home mum that a housekeeper could conceivably take on. That sounds right to me. If the maid was in fact performing the functions of “teacher, CEO, psychologist, PC/Mac operator, driving and ‘facilities manager’”, then yeah, sure she was underpaid.
Yeah, I hope I’ll be forgiven if I find that narrative less than compelling.
I know people aren’t reading my posts but wow. That was only one line and you still didn’t go through it.
a) That’s not what you said. You said it was ‘wrong/unethical’. Because, apparently in your eyes marrying someone from another country makes you a traitor or unable to be loyal to your birth country. Or something.
b) Would you be surprised to know that maybe countries -don’t- necessarily find it all that odd that someone spending significant parts of their career overseas might end up…oh, I don’t know, marrying someone from overseas?
Bangladesh, for example, seems to think it’s OK:
But maybe India is just behind the times.
The key words here are "If you have me sign a contract " . If you’re forced into signing the contract, then yeah maybe. If you’ve approached someone for work and signed a contract that is agreeable to both of you, then you later turn around and exploit the fact that it is illegal, do you at least accept that things are a bit more grey than you make them out to be?
Not in the slightest. You can’t sign away rights, and the fault is on the person offering the illegal contract (which it seems plain that she knew was illegal when she offered it, otherwise why lie about it to the US?)
No.
Signing a contract that you believe is legal and that you later find out is illegal does not make the contract a “grey area”; it makes it a clearly “black-or-white area” kind of thing. We do not seek, thru the law, to reward people who’re clever enough to fool or trick other people.
Dial back the ad hominem, pls.
No warning issued.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Yeah, how dare the maid take advantage of someone signing them to an illegal slave-wages contract!
:rolleyes:
It’s entirely possible the maid didn’t know US laws,maybe? It’s clear her employer *did *know US laws, given the extent to which she went to conceal the second, secret contract.