Here's a First!

Well, okay, so maybe not THE very first, but the first I can recall seeing this, that the Minister of Labor has

“. . . issued a decision to deny a Saudi woman, accused of abusing her sponsoree, the right to recruit a replacement.”

“It is indeed a commendable thing that the Minister of Labor has started implementing the new disciplines for recruitment of house help.”

“The new regulation protects all the financial and humanitarian aspects, foremost ascertaining a family’s actual need for house help and that a Saudi recruiter will indeed be able to financially afford and HENCE PAY the wages of these house workers.”

[Emphasis added, is mine.]

“Moreover, any case of abuse towards these helpers will be referred to security authorities and to the regions’ emirates, the violators will then be denied the right to recruit any other help and will also be required to pay the travel expenses of their sponsorees.”

This is ALL good. Someone truly does have the welfare of these imported domestic helpers in their sights and is actually willing to put into practice AND enforce new regulations.

There is, of course, the usual backlash, and the author of the article states,

“I would have very much liked for the new regulation to give Saudi sponsors rights.”

You, see, Nawal [I do not know if this is a man or a woman], therein lies what has been the problem up until now. The sponsors had all the rights and the sponsorees had none. That the sponsors have lost the “right” to abuse their sponsorees doesn’t mean that the sponsors no longer have “rights.” Nawal also believes that the new regulation

“should have stipulated strict sanctions against all those who on the other hand commit violations against their sponsor, or harm them, or commit a crime, or run away before the legal contract period lapses.”

Here’s an idea, Nawal – why doesn’t everyone give the new regulation “a good old college try” and see how it works by not abusing the sponsorees. I’m willing to go out on a limb here and bet that if the sponsorees are not abused and are paid their wages [on a timely basis] that they won’t react with committing violations against their sponsors, they won’t want to harm them, and they won’t need to commit crimes [in order to merely exist and survive]. If this works out and everyone seems to be “living happily ever after” probably a whole lot fewer sponsorees are going to want to be running away.

Unfortunately, Nawal doesn’t really seem all to willing to give it that “old college try,” wanting the regulation to provide for “justice to be fully served” by the sponsorees for committing violations and harming sponsors, etc. According to Nawal,

“The problem with these disciplines is that they have failed so far to solve the issue of the runaway house help, who once they reach the country use the first chance they get to run away.”

Probably this does occur, occasionally, but I, for one, would be hard-pressed to believe it happens as frequently as Nawal would like for us to imagine it does.

And, the math you show us to back-up your facts, Nawal, is this “new math?” The math I learned is “old math” and this just doesn’t add up for someone from the “old school” who learned "old math."

You tell us that SR41* million is spent on recruitment “of house labor.” Then you tell us that Saudi families incur losses of “approximately” SR 38 million as a result “of the running away of maids,” but factoring into this is that “citizens are required to pay SR6,000 before a maid arrives.” [Yes, the “word” problems ARE the hardest, aren’t they!?!]

First we divide 41,000,000 by 6,000; this equals 6,833.33 maids imported per year. Now, divide 38,000,000 by 6,000; this equals 6,333.33 maids. Using “new math” this means that of the 6,833.33 maids that come here to work 6,333.33 run away.

This leaves ONLY 500 maids – or sponsorees – who remain with their sponsors – that don’t run away. Nawal, you are right. If there are ONLY 500 maids that are not abused, that are paid, and that are content to stay with their sponsors, this really IS a HUGE problem – certainly a much, much larger problem than I ever imagined!

Gratefully, you’ve clarified a part of the problem for us by telling us that,

“It is a known fact that gangs were formed to recruit the services of these runaway maids for higher salaries, particularly in Ramadan and the holiday seasons.”

Then Nawal says that

“Recruitment of labor has risen by 14 percent even though the new regulation is now enforced.”

If I use Nawal’s “new math” these gangs now have an additional 95.66 maids to lure away from their sponsors. And, this, irrespective of the fact that sponsors have lost the right to abuse the sponsorees. Hmmph. Who knew…

Nawal sums it all up – perfectly – wrapped in a pretty little package and tied with a bow – by finally – finally – answering for us that ever-nagging, age-old question as to whether the chicken or the egg came first – and states,

“As for why some maids run away, that is simple to answer, why not?”

Why not, indeed…

*SR = Saudi Riyals
SR41,000,000 = $10,991,957.10 [U.S. Dollars]
SR38,000,000 = $10,187,667.56 [U.S. Dollars]
SR6,000 = $1,608.57 [U.S. Dollars]