4 ms·
I worked for a company that was bought by CBA, and this was happening while I was there. This would be great if: Indian workers were hired on equivalent terms,
by monkeycantype 1y ago
I worked for a company that was bought by CBA, and this was happening while I was there.
This would be great if:
Indian workers were hired on equivalent terms, in Australia,
on visas that give them a clear path to citizenship.
If they were hired as individuals and not via contracing companies that force them to sign separate secret contracts that prevent them from pushing for their full legal rights under Australian labor law. Immigration has been great for Australia in countless ways. I get really upset about they way large labor firms have co-opted as immigration a lever for corporations to undermine Australian working conditions and exploit Indian workers and I really don't know what to do
about.
- f1shy 1y ago>> via contracing companies that force them to sign separate secret contracts that prevent them from pushing for their full legal rights under Australian labor law Where is the line between that and plain slavery?
- DoneWithAllThat 1y agoSlaves are not paid wages. There’s no need to resort to hyperbole here, the practices are abhorrent enough without it.
- zdragnar 1y agoIndentured service is often colloquially conflated with slavery, as the legal protections are removed and so too usually the freedom of association.
- f1shy 1y agoWhere is the hyperbole? Is a question: where is the line to start calling it slavery. Obviously, for you far. Not for me. If we want to go the pedantry way, this is the definition I found: “a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.” Emphasis in proper mine.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- monkeycantype 1y agoI'm ont talking about anonomous people, I'm talking about remote-work collegues whose name I know. They were not slaves, they were absolutley paid wages, but not equivalent wages to local hires.
- fennecbutt 1y agoNo, it would still not be great. Local options should always be preferred to protect local job markets. Any company only exists because they can do business locally, so they should support local or be burnt to the ground. I now live in the UK, when I got hired here they had to advertise my position to see if they could fill it locally before they could grant me a visa for it - this is the way.
- wat10000 1y agoWas there literally nobody in the country capable of doing what you do? Or were they just not willing to pay enough?
- bananapub 1y agoit is extremely routine for big companies to do this - all the fangs, big banks, etc, hire everyone they can in Britain on very pleasant pay packages and then hire overseas and pay immigrants the same amount.
- wat10000 1y agoOf course. And it's also a (deliberate, widely accepted) misunderstanding of basic economics. If you pay more you'll be able to hire more. Immigrants such as the one I'm replying to aren't typically hired because there are literally zero available locals with the skills. They're hired because they're cheaper, putting a ceiling on wages. Sometimes that ceiling can be quite high, but it's still there. "You can only bring someone into the country if you can't hire locally" is a polite fiction.
- hombre_fatal 1y agoMany years ago I was hired by {tech company} in {European country} (I'm from the US). Once I worked there for a month and befriended my team, one of them showed me how they posted a fake job listing with exactly my experience, and we all laughed about it. All of the implementations of this legislation seem trivial to rig. Even though it feels good to assume you outcompeted everyone in the UK with your leet skills and they had no option to import the heavy guns.