5 ms·

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is m

• GabrielF00 13y ago
  So, let's say that the au pair finds out that she's getting paid a third of what her employer claimed on an official document to be paying her (and also considerably less than the legal minimum wage). What's wrong with the au pair then leaving the employer? What's wrong with her seeking legal advice? What's wrong with her lawyer threatening legal action? Also, I find it very sleazy that the diplomat's sister possesses and released to the press a personal letter from the au pair to her family.
• allochthon 13y ago
  American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the diplomat was Indian; it had to do with a point of law. - There are well-known limits to diplomatic immunity. Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.
  • wozniacki 13y ago
    Ahem. Raymond Allen Davis is a former United States Army soldier, private security firm employee, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On January 27, 2011, Davis killed two reportedly armed men in Lahore, Pakistan. Although the U.S. government contended that he was protected by diplomatic immunity because of his employment with the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was jailed and criminally charged by Pakistani authorities with double murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. A car coming to aid Davis killed a third Pakistani man in a "hit and run" while speeding on the wrong side of the road. On March 16, 2011, Davis was released after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million in diyya (a form of monetary compensation or blood money). Judges then acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan. The incident led to a diplomatic furor and deterioration in Pakistan–United States relations. A major focus of the incident was the U.S.'s assertion that Davis was protected under the principle of diplomatic immunity due to his role as an "administrative and technical official" attached to the Lahore consulate. The U.S. government claimed that Davis was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and demanded he be released from custody immediately. President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
    • allochthon 13y ago
      Yeah, good point. That would seem to be a clear exception to what I wrote.
    • genwin 13y ago
      That's murky relevancy since there was a self-defense angle to it.
  • sjtgraham 13y ago
    AFAIK she lacked diplomatic immunity and only had consular immunity, i.e. immunity only extending to consular functions.
  • 13y ago
• genwin 13y ago
  Getting a fraction of the wage the law requires => treated well Demanding the wage the law requires => extortion
• scott_s 13y ago
  The support for "being treated well" in the Daily Mail article is a letter written to her family, one month after arriving in the US. That's not strong evidence for the claim. One, it was only after one month, which may not be representative of the rest of her working time. Two, when people aren't doing well, they don't always tell their family so, because they don't want their family to worry.
• skue 13y ago
  Your response perfectly illustrates the flawed attitude the author was describing. Can you not hear yourself? You are calling another human being a "perk"!!! Enough with the semantic arguments: 1. Calling a servant an "au pair" or a "perk" doesn't make her less of a human being. 2. ALL human beings have rights, and in the US those rights include employment protections, such as a minimum wage. 3. It doesn't matter what "perks" the diplomat was promised. She cannot violate another's legal rights because she feels entitled to a servant (excuse me, an "au pair"). 4. Shipping a human being overseas to be a servant with the expectation that they will be underpaid doesn't make this okay. On the contrary, that's ominously close to human trafficking. 5. Asking to be released from unjust and illegal labor conditions and proposing a settlement for back-pay and damages IS NOT BLACKMAIL! (If it were blackmail, why is the servant not being prosecuted for extortion? Answer: because it's not blackmail!) 6. The arrest really isn't about the servant (Ms. Richard). Ms. Khobragade is being prosecuted by the federal government for a crime committed against the federal government. She lied on a federal form, which is a felony right there. She also did so to cover up that she violated the minimum wage law. That's why she was arrested. 7. All the talk about servants that has arisen in Western media and online is due to India's response and how stunned we in the West are that there are still people on this planet who can be this inhumane (as your comment sadly illustrates). Edit: Grammar fixes.
  • delinka 13y ago
    'You are calling another human being a "perk"!' uh, no ... CEOs get assistants as perks (our CEO has three - maybe one is 'necessary' but the others are certainly perks) and no one bats an eye. That's because they're paid a salary and are employed at-will: they can leave whenever they want. It's not "another human being as a perk," it's a position benefiting the CEO that the company is willing to pay for. About #7: I'm a USian and I'd absolutely have servants if I could afford them. Not slaves, but servants with a paycheck. Why not? I'm happen to "spread the wealth" but I'm not just going to give it away- you need to earn it ... how about keeping my lawn looking nice? Here's your paycheck. Maybe do my laundry? Here's your paycheck. Keep the place tidy, please... and here's your paycheck.
    • deleted 13y ago
• serge2k 13y ago
  Being able to obtain the visa is fine, but the servant should have been paid properly.
• oh_sigh 13y ago
  I don't quite follow your logic. You focus on how having an au pair is a perk of her job. How is that connected with not paying an employee the legal minimum wage?
• xxpor 13y ago
  You can't "run away" from a job in the US. You can leave whenever you want.