The diplomat had American husband(the household income would be good) and children. I wasn’t aware of this till recently. Yet she took maid from India(for $600 and free stuff) instead of finding one in the US.
Probably that is a good reason for arrest? On re-thinking - maybe yes. I have to admit this honestly even at the cost of coming across as silly at the end of the thread.
You’ll still have to pay them a legal amount, let them keep their passports, fill in the visas without lying, and generally comply with US employment law if they’re working in the US.
And the idea that the third largest economy in the world can’t afford to pay a handful of maids a living wage for where they’re working is ludicrous.
“let them keep their passports” - No doubt. That is always the expectation from here as well.
I think the issue is the paper work, which we have to work on. We are already spending the minimum salary amount on the workers.
For ex. lets say the salary is $2000 and the worker willfully pays back $1400 for food, accommodation, travel etc which is a part of a second contract.
You really, really don’t get it do you?
“Pay them” means “pay them”.
End of discussion.
There is no such thing as a “required voluntary kickback”
I have a better idea, let’s pay them at the very least the minimum amount required by law, then…gee, I don’t know - maybe let the worker decide how they want to spend their money?
how is that a kickback? workers are working for 40 hrs per week, earning over 9.75 per hr. They are preferring 1400 dollar accomodation and food rather than staying in 2000 dollar studio apartment.
Kickback: a form of negotiated bribery in which a commission is paid to the bribe-taker as a quid pro quo for services rendered.
‘You sign this lucrative contract, but you have to give back most of the money to me’
You do realize that the diplomat wasn’t paying rent, right? Why should the maid be forced to pay rent to the diplomat?
its not a kickback. its the price for services - house food travel etc
workers who leave from India will prefer this.
…go on, finish the sentence - they would prefer it IF THEY WERE LIVING IN INDIA.
If they were living in a really expensive metropolitan city like, say, oh I don’t know…Manhattan? - they’d realize that ‘a good wage for India’ isn’t in the same ballpark as ‘a good wage for Manhattan’. Hell it ain’t even the same fucking sport.
What *services *were being provided by the diplomat?
House: rent paid for by the government of India.
Food: Is she forced to reimburse the diplomat for the food the diplomat orders her to buy and prepare?
Travel: What fucking travel services is the diplomat providing that require reimbursement?
Seriously - are you being obtuse on purpose?
I mean if they are offered $1600 per month for a 40 hrs a week job in the US. And given an option to pay $1000 for food, accommodation and travel, then 99.99% of the workers leaving India for that job would take that option(of paying $1000).
The workers are now Government of India’s employees not diplomats’ employees anymore.
By workers, I mean house maids, drivers, staff at embassy and consulates etc.
Basically, all it is in-effect, is a change of paperwork and nothing else.
Right - is this before or after you tell them that they’re living in one of the most expensive cities in the world? That they won’t be able to afford a cell phone. Internet. No movies. No shows. No going out for dinner. Want to buy a new pair of clothes? Sorry, that costs a week of cash on hand.
Oh, I see, they’ll be working 100 hours a week so they won’t have time to spend their money anyway! Win-Win!
:rolleyes:
Look - *if *the government of India decided that diplomats required maids, then I would have no problem with the government of India deciding to hire maids, and coming up with a salary that included room & board, etc. Obviously the only requirement would be that it was compliant with US labor laws. US labor laws do allow for costs of ‘room & board etc’ to be counted towards the minimum wage obligation, but there are rather strict record keeping requirements. So sure, it’s theoretically possible - might be preferable, even, to ensure diplomats aren’t taking advantage of maids not having the first clue about US labor laws, cost of living difference, etc.
But in our particular case here, it’s irrelevant: any ‘room & boarding facilities’ that are provided *must be primarily for the benefit of the employee and their costs would not otherwise be incurred by the employer.
*Ponder that for a moment and reflect on how this matches up with the maid sleeping in a small room in an apartment provided for by the diplomat’s employer.
In any event - seriously, ‘It’s more than she would have gotten paid in India!’ and ‘Everyone in India would take those conditions!’ are irrelevant arguments, because they completely ignore the vastly different costs of living - and yes, that’s even before we get to the whole ‘oh by the way the whole agreement was illegal’ argument.
Secondly - and I’ll type slower so you understand - *the diplomat was not paying for any of the maid’s costs.
*The diplomat wasn’t paying the rent. The diplomat was getting an overseas stipend that covered the higher cost of living in New York. The diplomat wasn’t paying for travel costs (and in any event employer-provided travel for job purposes wouldn’t count towards the minimum wage obligations anyway).
Why is the maid reimbursing the diplomat?
The only way I could see that being legal is if it is very specifically and explicitly laid out prior to visa approval, not as a “second contract” but part of a singular contract. So far as I can tell that was not done in this case. Even then, I am not entirely sure it would be legal under US law.
DragonAsh
Thanks for the compliment. I may be slow, you aren’t fast yourself.
It has been mentioned enough times(read the thread again) that as far as India is concerned, *the maid is a fraud *and the indictment is full of lies(100 hrs per week etc). The maid could have very well said that she wasn’t allowed to sleep and fed dog food. should I type this once more, slowly?
Nobody is contesting that that was a visa fraud committed, by paying less than what was mentioned in visa document and by paying less than $9.75 per hr.
What is going to be done now will result in workers(maids,embassy staff, drivers etc) getting paid $1600 and 99.99% of them preferring to pay $1000 for food, accommodation, travel, medical expenses, weekly trip to market, saloons etc.
Right - because public opinion in India is what really matters to this case and the legal outcome.
:rolleyes:
go read the thread
That doesn’t matter. What matters is what the US, and specifically the US legal system, thinks. Even if it would be fraud in India doesn’t mean it is elsewhere.
Good, then you shouldn’t have any problem with the consular officer being locked up for that fraud.
No, it won’t, ass that would be illegal. They will be paid at least the minimum wage, and either be provided free room and board as a condition of working in the house, or they will find their own place to live and pay for it. You can’t just decide someone must live somewhere and charge them for it as a condition of employment!
If someone being paid minimum wage in the most expensive city in the world is better off than someone working as a maid in India, then your outrage should be at the conditions in India, not the laws in New York.
This x100000.
Don’t know if truthSeeker2 understands how bad India is coming out in all of this, from pretty much every angle and perspective possible.
worker preferring != worker forced without giving him/her the option.
he/she will get 2 options. 99.99 percent will take the option tht I mentioned.
people are prolonging this without a point.
Again - because what she’d done was illegal and she didn’t want to suffer from it?
I’m not taking any of her claims at face value. Only the one where she claims the maid was not abused. It’s very believable to me
And I suspect American political/economic affiliations or views determine for most people whether you believe the maid or the consul. Those who identify as liberal are more likely to believe that employers exploit the poor by default. As for myself, I dislike the Indian bureaucracy(of which Khobragade was a part) immensely. In particular, I dislike her. I disagree with most of the bureaucracy’s actions in this situation. I have laid out at great length why I believe the maid is fabricating abuse. It makes sense for her to do so. If you still want to impute class affiliation to me, I can’t stop you.
Because NGOs are somehow independent and impartial observers that have some magical powers to discern truth? Because they don’t suffer from wanting to push the cause that they advocate into the limelight? My own bias is that NGOs tend to be the most uncritical when it comes to issues that they advocate. I’d be willing to believe a report from an independent inquiry, but I dismiss the claim that an NGO that focuses on exploitation of labour supporting her strengthens the truth value of the maid’s claim.
The maid in question was not paying any of the bills of cost of living. She was not paying rent, she was not paying for food, she was not paying for utilities. Room and board were provided. She did not have any mandatory expenditure and could save all the money that she was making. Her family was in India and incurring costs at Indian prices. Your example is simply not a valid comparison.