3 ms·

I agree that many workers go to the UAE (and Saudi Arabia and other places) because they can get a much better deal there than they could get at home. However,

by FabHK 5y ago

I agree that many workers go to the UAE (and Saudi Arabia and other places) because they can get a much better deal there than they could get at home. However, it is also true that too many of those migrant workers are then treated atrociously, with little legal recourse, and with a casual chauvinism and racism that far exceeds what is often labeled "racism" in progressive societies. And that is particularly grating given that those oil-rich countries could afford not only fancy buildings and museums, but also decent labour standards. > Should Indian and Pakistani companies pay more to Indian and Pakistani workers they bring to Dubai? Yes indeed. > Who do you think should dictate how much more Indian companies should pay [...]? As usual, the government of the country they operate in. In this case, the UAE governments. It would probably mean somewhat more expensive buildings for the UAE, and somewhat less profits for said Indian and Pakistani companies.

Aspos 5y ago
So a guy lives in what can be best described as a "pit", makes an equivalent of, say, $200/m. Among many contenders wins job in Dubai, moves to a company-provided, airconditioned camp (built by no other that Hughes, who builds camps for Exxon, BP and others around the world), eats company-provided food, wears company-provided closes, watches company-provided TV, gets shuttled to and from work for free and makes $600/m. Works his ass off to stay employed, obviously. In a few years he may save up enough to marry any girl in the village. With some luck he may be given a chance to learn welding. If so, he will buy a new Hero Honda, or, even better, an automobile. What should change in this scenario so you would stop calling this a "slavery"?
- alexvoda 5y ago
  Be provided an exit at any point. If the worker deems the actual(not advertised) working conditions unacceptable, they should be enabled to return home. Otherwise they are defacto captive, i.e. a slave.
  - Aspos 5y ago
    That's right. Employees are free to go and can head to the airport at any moment. Employer must arrange and pay for the departure within a month. If it does not happen, government arranges the exit, pays the travel expenses and deducts the money from company's escrow account.

by FabHK 5y ago

Aspos 5y ago

So a guy lives in what can be best described as a "pit", makes an equivalent of, say, $200/m. Among many contenders wins job in Dubai, moves to a company-provided, airconditioned camp (built by no other that Hughes, who builds camps for Exxon, BP and others around the world), eats company-provided food, wears company-provided closes, watches company-provided TV, gets shuttled to and from work for free and makes $600/m. Works his ass off to stay employed, obviously. In a few years he may save up enough to marry any girl in the village. With some luck he may be given a chance to learn welding. If so, he will buy a new Hero Honda, or, even better, an automobile. What should change in this scenario so you would stop calling this a "slavery"?

alexvoda 5y ago
Be provided an exit at any point. If the worker deems the actual(not advertised) working conditions unacceptable, they should be enabled to return home. Otherwise they are defacto captive, i.e. a slave.
- Aspos 5y ago
  That's right. Employees are free to go and can head to the airport at any moment. Employer must arrange and pay for the departure within a month. If it does not happen, government arranges the exit, pays the travel expenses and deducts the money from company's escrow account.