In many ways, Bahrain is an "easy" country... It is easier to be a "Westerner" there than it is in Saudi Arabia. You do not have to don a full-length, shapeless black bag when you leave your house [or compound]. There is no forced segregation of the sexes - an entrance for men and an entrance for women. Malls and shops do not all close for prayer times [except during Ramadan] - and they certainly do not close for the entire afternoon like they do here. Clothing stores have fitting rooms... Women can drive in Bahrain. But then, women can drive in almost every other country in the world, but here! You can go out to eat at a nice restaurant and order a glass of wine with your meal - or a beer - or whatever it is that you want to drink [except, of course, during Ramadan]. You can go to a movie theater... For a short while, when DH was a contractor here in the Sandbox and I was not allowed to accompany him, we considered getting an apartment in Bahrain - where I would have been allowed. [Yes. Of course we were married - but until DH was a full-time employee at the company he works for, as a contractor he was "single" as far as the powers that be, here, were concerned, and I was not allowed to come with him.]
Bahrain is ahead of the curve insofar as being a civilized country. In yesterday's paper there was an article that says that a special committee has been formed "to work on the rights of domestic workers" which will mandate that the maids have a "compulsory weekly day off." I am hopeful, for the maids' that this will be made a law and that they will receive a day off. It would be great if the practice was adopted throughout the entire Gulf...
Showing posts with label Domestic Help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Help. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, September 24, 2006
No Vacation for the Maids
Well, it wouldn’t have really been a vacation, anyway, just the opportunity to travel. However, the Shura Council [or Shoura Council] is looking into “an alarming problem which surfaced lately, of maids traveling in the company of families.”
This is, no doubt, directly related to the Colorado case of Homaidan Al-Turki who has recently been given a sentence of 27 years to life in prison for sexually assaulting an Indonesian housekeeper and keeping her as a virtual slave. The Saudi Gazette published an article on Friday, September 22, 2003, “Families Traveling with Maids,” which “Particularly [it] concerns those sponsoring families who travel to Western countries and the United States, in particular either on holiday or for educational purposes.” Abdullah Abulsamh writes:
“In those countries, regulations are totally different from those observed in ours. Therefore, it never occurred to a number of sponsors who were planning travel that detaining a maid’s passport is an offense which may lead to imprisonment.
Western countries consider this practice as an infringement upon a worker’s rights and freedom, etc.
A number of friends whose maids have decided to run away (or rather to cease working) have told me that the maids went to the police who then forced sponsors to hand them back their passports, regardless of the issues of sponsorship and liability.
Recently, the matter has become more serious in the United States, as a sponsor detaining a maid’s passport can be tried and imprisoned. The US Consulate is now rejecting applications for visas for maids, unless employment contracts are made in the American style, which means the number of working hours, livings conditions, etc. all indicated beforehand.
It is honestly shameful and sorrowful to watch Saudi families with several maids tagging behind watching the children while their mothers are sitting in cafes. Most of the time, maids remain standing on the sidewalk, at a distance, or sit on the edge of a chair, or run after the noisy, little “devils” who never settle in one place.
Maids can also be seen in the hotels’ hallways with the children while mothers are asleep after staying up at the malls the previous night.
It is the duty of the press to join the Shoura Council in calling for a ban on the travel of maids with families, whether for vacationing or scholastic purposes.
The alternative would be to contact employment agencies to provide local workers or baby sitters who are paid by the hour. This denigration of the Kingdom’s reputation must end.”
If there is a law that specifies “detaining a maid’s passport” could lead to imprisonment, I was unable to find it in a search of the United States government website for international visitors. “Detaining a maid” might, however, be construed as “false imprisonment” if confiscating [“detaining”] one’s passport were interpreted as confinement without legal authority; this is punishable by imprisonment.
Workers in “Western countries,” and specifically, the United States, are afforded a barrage of rights not necessarily bestowed upon employees in other countries, i.e., a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc. I am not a legal authority but I’d venture to guess “detaining” a passport or person is not allowable and would be considered “an infringement” upon an employee/worker.
A U.S. citizen in Saudi Arabia is subject to that country's laws and regulations. Whether there is any kind of reciprocal relationship in regard to laws and regulations between one country and another is dictated by the host-country. Thus, perhaps it would behoove foreigners traveling with domestic help to ascertain – before journeying – what laws are applicable to specific issues of “sponsorship and liability” should a “maid” decide “to run away (or rather to cease working)” in the host country. That the US Consulate is rejecting applications for visas to be given to maids or other domestic help unless “employment contracts are made in the American style” protects all parties involved, eliminating any guess work as to what is or isn’t allowed.
Although Mr. Abulsamh’s observations may tinge a few raw nerves in his home Country, they will be viewed much more genially by the United States and other Western countries who undoubtedly will agree that it is indeed “shameful and sorrowful to watch Saudi families with several maids tagging behind...”
This is, no doubt, directly related to the Colorado case of Homaidan Al-Turki who has recently been given a sentence of 27 years to life in prison for sexually assaulting an Indonesian housekeeper and keeping her as a virtual slave. The Saudi Gazette published an article on Friday, September 22, 2003, “Families Traveling with Maids,” which “Particularly [it] concerns those sponsoring families who travel to Western countries and the United States, in particular either on holiday or for educational purposes.” Abdullah Abulsamh writes:
“In those countries, regulations are totally different from those observed in ours. Therefore, it never occurred to a number of sponsors who were planning travel that detaining a maid’s passport is an offense which may lead to imprisonment.
Western countries consider this practice as an infringement upon a worker’s rights and freedom, etc.
A number of friends whose maids have decided to run away (or rather to cease working) have told me that the maids went to the police who then forced sponsors to hand them back their passports, regardless of the issues of sponsorship and liability.
Recently, the matter has become more serious in the United States, as a sponsor detaining a maid’s passport can be tried and imprisoned. The US Consulate is now rejecting applications for visas for maids, unless employment contracts are made in the American style, which means the number of working hours, livings conditions, etc. all indicated beforehand.
It is honestly shameful and sorrowful to watch Saudi families with several maids tagging behind watching the children while their mothers are sitting in cafes. Most of the time, maids remain standing on the sidewalk, at a distance, or sit on the edge of a chair, or run after the noisy, little “devils” who never settle in one place.
Maids can also be seen in the hotels’ hallways with the children while mothers are asleep after staying up at the malls the previous night.
It is the duty of the press to join the Shoura Council in calling for a ban on the travel of maids with families, whether for vacationing or scholastic purposes.
The alternative would be to contact employment agencies to provide local workers or baby sitters who are paid by the hour. This denigration of the Kingdom’s reputation must end.”
If there is a law that specifies “detaining a maid’s passport” could lead to imprisonment, I was unable to find it in a search of the United States government website for international visitors. “Detaining a maid” might, however, be construed as “false imprisonment” if confiscating [“detaining”] one’s passport were interpreted as confinement without legal authority; this is punishable by imprisonment.
Workers in “Western countries,” and specifically, the United States, are afforded a barrage of rights not necessarily bestowed upon employees in other countries, i.e., a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc. I am not a legal authority but I’d venture to guess “detaining” a passport or person is not allowable and would be considered “an infringement” upon an employee/worker.
A U.S. citizen in Saudi Arabia is subject to that country's laws and regulations. Whether there is any kind of reciprocal relationship in regard to laws and regulations between one country and another is dictated by the host-country. Thus, perhaps it would behoove foreigners traveling with domestic help to ascertain – before journeying – what laws are applicable to specific issues of “sponsorship and liability” should a “maid” decide “to run away (or rather to cease working)” in the host country. That the US Consulate is rejecting applications for visas to be given to maids or other domestic help unless “employment contracts are made in the American style” protects all parties involved, eliminating any guess work as to what is or isn’t allowed.
Although Mr. Abulsamh’s observations may tinge a few raw nerves in his home Country, they will be viewed much more genially by the United States and other Western countries who undoubtedly will agree that it is indeed “shameful and sorrowful to watch Saudi families with several maids tagging behind...”
Friday, September 08, 2006
Plenty? I Don’t Think So
An article in Arab News says, “Employers who don’t abuse or maltreat their domestic help do exist, and there are plenty of them out there.” If there are plenty, we certainly are not made aware of them – employers who treat their domestic help as wonderfully as this one!
Reem Bajnaid was six years old when Lucena Benigno Agsao arrived from the Philippines. Twenty-seven years later, Ms. Agsao has returned to her home. Although she had no plans to retire at this time, illness has “cut short her plans,” as she has been diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer.
Members of Reem Bajnaid’s family personally assured Ms. Agsao that they would shoulder “all of her expenses” if she wished to remain in The Kingdom to be treated at a hospital in Jeddah. Ms. Agsao, instead, has returned to the Philippines to see treatment so that she will be near family and friends.
An official who was monitoring the case, said:
A nurse accompanied Ms. Agsao on the Saudia Airlines flight home in a business class seat, paid for by her sponsor’s family.
The bar has now been set. And it is much, much higher than it was in the past. Reem Bajnaid’s family is truly a shining example of outstanding employers!
Reem Bajnaid was six years old when Lucena Benigno Agsao arrived from the Philippines. Twenty-seven years later, Ms. Agsao has returned to her home. Although she had no plans to retire at this time, illness has “cut short her plans,” as she has been diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer.
Members of Reem Bajnaid’s family personally assured Ms. Agsao that they would shoulder “all of her expenses” if she wished to remain in The Kingdom to be treated at a hospital in Jeddah. Ms. Agsao, instead, has returned to the Philippines to see treatment so that she will be near family and friends.
An official who was monitoring the case, said:
"We very much appreciate and commend the efforts of [the maid’s sponsor] family for providing all the medical requirements of their maid. The sponsors’ overwhelming concern for the wellbeing of their helper is more of a gesture of love. It is a love like that for a mother, a mother who has always been there for them these past 27 years."
A nurse accompanied Ms. Agsao on the Saudia Airlines flight home in a business class seat, paid for by her sponsor’s family.
The bar has now been set. And it is much, much higher than it was in the past. Reem Bajnaid’s family is truly a shining example of outstanding employers!
Friday, September 01, 2006
Twins, Say "Goodbye" to Mommy and Daddy
This is too bad, really. Sad. And, unfair.
Kesiya and Albert are 19-month-old twins whose parents are sitting in jail waiting to go to trial for committing murder. The Nepalese maid, allegedly, tried to run away from the twins’ parents, Roy Joseph and Biji Thomas, and now she is dead. Apparently, the couple was “detained after the police found the mobile phone” which belonged to the maid.
The twins “who were separated from their lactating mother for more than a month” have left The Sandbox [Riyadh] to join their grandparents in Kerala, India. In the meantime, Mommy and Daddy are languishing in separate lock-ups, and have not even had the benefit of “receiving any counselor access” [talking to a lawyer!].
The Embassy of India is doing everything they can as it is “bound by its duties to represent its nationals when they are in legal disputes in Saudi Arabia.”
“Muraleedharan, general convener Federation of Kerala Associates in Saudi Arabia [Fokasa] has met with Indian Ambassador M.O.H. Farook” and they have “submitted a memorandum.” The memorandum, signed by Muraleedharan, says, in part:
One thing is for certain. It will be sometime before the parents are reunited with Kesiya and Albert and that is too bad. Sad. And, unfair.
Kesiya and Albert are 19-month-old twins whose parents are sitting in jail waiting to go to trial for committing murder. The Nepalese maid, allegedly, tried to run away from the twins’ parents, Roy Joseph and Biji Thomas, and now she is dead. Apparently, the couple was “detained after the police found the mobile phone” which belonged to the maid.
The twins “who were separated from their lactating mother for more than a month” have left The Sandbox [Riyadh] to join their grandparents in Kerala, India. In the meantime, Mommy and Daddy are languishing in separate lock-ups, and have not even had the benefit of “receiving any counselor access” [talking to a lawyer!].
The Embassy of India is doing everything they can as it is “bound by its duties to represent its nationals when they are in legal disputes in Saudi Arabia.”
“Muraleedharan, general convener Federation of Kerala Associates in Saudi Arabia [Fokasa] has met with Indian Ambassador M.O.H. Farook” and they have “submitted a memorandum.” The memorandum, signed by Muraleedharan, says, in part:
“Since the Kingdom is a country which recognizes and respects the rights of individuals the detained couple should be considered as innocent until proven guilty.”I recall seeing the original article in the Arab News, but only just glanced at it so I am short on details, i.e., the maid’s death – was a body found? And, do officials know the cause of death? Now, inquiring minds want to know how it is that the “Indian couple was detained after the police found the mobile phone.” Did the police have a search warrant and find the phone in the “Indian” couple’s home? Did the couple get stopped in a vehicle? Was the phone found on the maid [and she was found, where?] with the “camera” on? What evidence is there that the “Indian couple” are to blame for the death of the maid? I’ll try to follow the details.
One thing is for certain. It will be sometime before the parents are reunited with Kesiya and Albert and that is too bad. Sad. And, unfair.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Abused Maid Paid $8,042.89
We have a winner!
“Rosie who survived seven months of torture at the hands of her sponsor and his wife” is going to be paid 30,000 Saudi Riyals [$8,042.89] in compensation. Rosie tells her story to The Saudi Gazette, and states that her “employers had subjected me to the harsh beating when I asked for my salary. The beating became a ritual and escalated when I asked the help of the mother of my woman employer.”
A [poor, or she would not have come here] young woman from the Philippines, Rosie came to Saudi this past February to work as a maid for 750 Saudi Riyals a month, or whopping $201.07 U.S. Dollars! This measly amount went unpaid, a saga all to familiar here in The Kingdom, for some six months. On August 8th Rosie received what was her last and “the worst” beating and the next day she “managed to escape and made it to the King Fahd Hospital” where her compatriots called the Philippine embassy to report her condition.
Philippine embassy welfare officer Danilo P. Flores said, “Her condition was heartbreaking. She had contusions on her head and had developed hematoma all over her body.” Flores reported the incident to Captain Fahd Saad Al-Dossari of the Udulliyah Police who investigated the case, summoned Rosie’s sponsor and “locked him up.” It is reported that Rosie’s sponsor “confessed to his crime before police and agreed to settle the case by paying Rosie seven months of unpaid salaries and other damages.”
It is in this regard that we have a winner… In the almost four years that I have been here in The Sandbox, not ONCE have I read that a sponsor has admitted to the crime of abusing domestic help. Not. Once. It goes without saying that NO ONE should have to suffer abuse at the hands of their employer, and it should go without saying that no one should go unpaid for any length of time, and certainly not for seven months.
“The embassy had initially asked for SR50,000.” “Rosie’s sponsor settled at the police station and agreed to pay SR30,000 after negotiations . . . That settlement includes SR18,000 representing 24 months worth of salaries, SR800 for the destruction of Rosie’s personal belongings, SR1,200 for air tickets back to the Philippines, and SR10,000 in blood money for the beatings.”
Broken down, the sums Rosie received for being abused by her sponsor, are:
SR50,000 – the initial amount requested – is $13,404.82 U.S. Dollars;
SR30,000 – the amount the sponsor agreed to pay – is $8,042.89 U.S. Dollars;
SR18,000 – representing two FULL years of salary – is $4,825.73 U.S. Dollars;
SR800 – for personal belongings – is $214.47 U.S. Dollars;
SR1200 – for airfare – is 321.71 U.S. Dollars; and
SR10,000 – payment of blood money – is $2,680.96 U.S. Dollars.
Colonel Al-Harbi states, “We would like to emphasize that such treatment – such abuse – will not and is not tolerated in our society. This is a warning to all employers to respect the rights of their workers.” This rhetoric has been the subject of diatribe for so long that there was never a resultant action came as no surprise. It is enlightening, to say the least, that we have come upon an official who truly means what he says. Let’s hope that someone, somewhere, seriously considers promoting Chief of Al-Ahsa Police, Colonel Ibrahim Muhammad Al-Harbi, to the head of whatever government agency oversees labor abuses and disputes!
“Rosie who survived seven months of torture at the hands of her sponsor and his wife” is going to be paid 30,000 Saudi Riyals [$8,042.89] in compensation. Rosie tells her story to The Saudi Gazette, and states that her “employers had subjected me to the harsh beating when I asked for my salary. The beating became a ritual and escalated when I asked the help of the mother of my woman employer.”
A [poor, or she would not have come here] young woman from the Philippines, Rosie came to Saudi this past February to work as a maid for 750 Saudi Riyals a month, or whopping $201.07 U.S. Dollars! This measly amount went unpaid, a saga all to familiar here in The Kingdom, for some six months. On August 8th Rosie received what was her last and “the worst” beating and the next day she “managed to escape and made it to the King Fahd Hospital” where her compatriots called the Philippine embassy to report her condition.
Philippine embassy welfare officer Danilo P. Flores said, “Her condition was heartbreaking. She had contusions on her head and had developed hematoma all over her body.” Flores reported the incident to Captain Fahd Saad Al-Dossari of the Udulliyah Police who investigated the case, summoned Rosie’s sponsor and “locked him up.” It is reported that Rosie’s sponsor “confessed to his crime before police and agreed to settle the case by paying Rosie seven months of unpaid salaries and other damages.”
It is in this regard that we have a winner… In the almost four years that I have been here in The Sandbox, not ONCE have I read that a sponsor has admitted to the crime of abusing domestic help. Not. Once. It goes without saying that NO ONE should have to suffer abuse at the hands of their employer, and it should go without saying that no one should go unpaid for any length of time, and certainly not for seven months.
“The embassy had initially asked for SR50,000.” “Rosie’s sponsor settled at the police station and agreed to pay SR30,000 after negotiations . . . That settlement includes SR18,000 representing 24 months worth of salaries, SR800 for the destruction of Rosie’s personal belongings, SR1,200 for air tickets back to the Philippines, and SR10,000 in blood money for the beatings.”
Broken down, the sums Rosie received for being abused by her sponsor, are:
SR50,000 – the initial amount requested – is $13,404.82 U.S. Dollars;
SR30,000 – the amount the sponsor agreed to pay – is $8,042.89 U.S. Dollars;
SR18,000 – representing two FULL years of salary – is $4,825.73 U.S. Dollars;
SR800 – for personal belongings – is $214.47 U.S. Dollars;
SR1200 – for airfare – is 321.71 U.S. Dollars; and
SR10,000 – payment of blood money – is $2,680.96 U.S. Dollars.
Colonel Al-Harbi states, “We would like to emphasize that such treatment – such abuse – will not and is not tolerated in our society. This is a warning to all employers to respect the rights of their workers.” This rhetoric has been the subject of diatribe for so long that there was never a resultant action came as no surprise. It is enlightening, to say the least, that we have come upon an official who truly means what he says. Let’s hope that someone, somewhere, seriously considers promoting Chief of Al-Ahsa Police, Colonel Ibrahim Muhammad Al-Harbi, to the head of whatever government agency oversees labor abuses and disputes!
Monday, June 19, 2006
A Breath of Fresh Air
Sabria S. Jawhar is new – relatively new – to The Saudi Gazette. She writes a weekly column called, “Out of the Box.” Today she addresses an issue that many of us have addressed – I have, The Religious Policman has, Hypnotic Verses and Silly Bahraini Girl have addressed it, and without a doubt, a slew of others that I just am not quite familiar with yet: Abuse of domestic workers.
If someone has had the courage to take some responsibility for the issue in black and white as direct and succinctly as Sabria has, I’ve not yet seen it. I do believe the column she wrote today will cause just a bit of flack.
Sabria, if everyone out there that employs domestic help shared your philosophy, many of us would no longer have an issue to address with regularity, as abuse of domestic workers would be obsolete! And if everyone out there just shared part of Sabria’s philosophy toward mankind in general, what a wonderful world this would be!
The specific situation, Sabria writes of, involves a man who fills an apartment building’s water tank. The man got sick and was unable to fill the tank one night. The next day, a tenant of the building, upset because there is no water, beats the man beyond recognition. When did any of us – not just those of us with domestic help – stop caring about our fellow human beings so much that instead of saying, “I’m sorry you weren’t feeling well,” we respond to the absence of some deed or promise with anger?
Sabria says,
If someone has had the courage to take some responsibility for the issue in black and white as direct and succinctly as Sabria has, I’ve not yet seen it. I do believe the column she wrote today will cause just a bit of flack.
Sabria, if everyone out there that employs domestic help shared your philosophy, many of us would no longer have an issue to address with regularity, as abuse of domestic workers would be obsolete! And if everyone out there just shared part of Sabria’s philosophy toward mankind in general, what a wonderful world this would be!
The specific situation, Sabria writes of, involves a man who fills an apartment building’s water tank. The man got sick and was unable to fill the tank one night. The next day, a tenant of the building, upset because there is no water, beats the man beyond recognition. When did any of us – not just those of us with domestic help – stop caring about our fellow human beings so much that instead of saying, “I’m sorry you weren’t feeling well,” we respond to the absence of some deed or promise with anger?
Sabria says,
“. . . few expatriates go home with good memories about their stay in the Kingdom.”
“. . . I felt truly ashamed and I was lost for words. I was speechless and could barely utter a word, other than to say “sorry brother,” for the behavior . . .”
“. . . what made the inherent dignity and humanity so cheap to us, that we thought we could enslave and humiliate them? How could we be so mean and cruel to these people, people who had crossed oceans to serve us and raise our children?”
“. . . give them more human working conditions, where they have a proper day off and come and go freely to see their friends and relatives, and even celebrate holidays like we do. They are human beings, who have feelings . . .”
“Why do we dare to impose our values on others? Why do we always think badly of people, who are simply different from us?”Yes, why, indeed…
“We need to encourage them to address the authorities and complain when their rights are violated, without the fear of reprisal or losing their jobs.”
Sabria, reading your column was truly a breath of fresh air – long overdue – to anyone gasping for breath in an environment of effluence!
Haya, YOU need to – no, no – you MUST read this!
[I do hope this young lady will not mind my addressing her by her first name – it was done out of admiration and not disrespect – S a b r i a. Why, I could almost be her twin!]
Sunday, June 11, 2006
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
There is, of course, the usual backlash, and the author of the article states,
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,
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,
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,
*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]
“. . . 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,
Why not, indeed…“As for why some maids run away, that is simple to answer, why not?”
*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]
Friday, June 09, 2006
Another Maid Abused
This poor Indonesian woman was dumped in front of a hospital, in an unconscious state, after being burned and beaten by her employer. The police say that her employer thought she was dead. She was covered in cuts and bruises, had fractures, head injuries and was suffering from internal bleeding. The article in today’s Arab News, says “the maid gave no indications why she was beaten in such a way. Police are currently investigating the case.” Another case of abuse that was investigated by the police comes to mind, Nour Miyati. If you are not familiar with Nour, this is but just a sampling of the articles her case generated.
I suspect the “maid saga” in some way, shape or form, will continue to be an issue for many years to come. Sad, but true. However, the “blame” for the situation cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of this Country, or any of the other Gulf countries where domestic help is considered to be a necessity versus a luxury. The countries from which the domestic help is imported must make drastic changes to their own dire economic conditions to prevent these people from having to seek the mere means of survival somewhere else.
Update: Today, the man who dumped this maid admits to doing so and offers an answer to the question “why.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether or not charges will eventually be brought against the maid, calling for punishment more severe than her employer’s.
I suspect the “maid saga” in some way, shape or form, will continue to be an issue for many years to come. Sad, but true. However, the “blame” for the situation cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of this Country, or any of the other Gulf countries where domestic help is considered to be a necessity versus a luxury. The countries from which the domestic help is imported must make drastic changes to their own dire economic conditions to prevent these people from having to seek the mere means of survival somewhere else.
Update: Today, the man who dumped this maid admits to doing so and offers an answer to the question “why.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether or not charges will eventually be brought against the maid, calling for punishment more severe than her employer’s.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
What is “domestic help” abuse
This article "Punishment is OK, But..." can’t go without comment. Sorry. Well, not sorry in the “true” sense of the word, but, it’s THESE types of articles that make me want to just grab someone – let’s start with the author – by the throat and start shaking them. What? Are you for real? WTF is wrong with you?!? Let’s assume, for the purpose of me ripping this person’s viewpoint to shreds, that “Haya” is a woman. Sounds like a woman’s name to me.
Haya begins by saying that she respects the Ministry of Labor’s decision to ban citizens found to abuse their maids and drivers from employing domestic workers. We’re both on the same page, so far. We’re not very far down the page, but we’re on the same page. This, however, is where Haya loses me – and we’re only on the very first paragraph! Haya “just wish[es] the ministry would identify the types of abuse such workers suffer so that others can learn and realize that maids and drivers are human beings with rights as well as needs.” Haya, if the Ministry doesn’t identify “the types of abuse” for you, does this mean that you think it is probably okay to beat them with a stick? Not pay them? Force them to work to 140 hours a week? Not let them eat? Chain them up so they can’t “escape?” What, Haya, would constitute abuse in your simple little mind? And, did you not ever think that they were “human beings” to begin with? They are not animals [let’s not even go here!], but they are not robots or clones, either. Do you think that just because they are imported from another country that, unlike you, they wouldn’t have any needs? As far as “rights,” well, this is an issue that I don’t think many employers of domestic help will ever be able to rationalize, so for time and length’s sake, we’ll pass over this, too.
Haya next says that she thinks that the ministry should “support” these employers in cases where “they suffer financial loss or any other harm by the misbehavior of employees or agencies.” But of course. As if the scales of justice weren’t tilted in favor of the “employer” over the “employee” so badly, now, that they about topple over now, let’s just throw the damn “scale” over on its side and get it over with then.
She substantiates this by saying, “when a maidservant [her word, not mine] or driver runs away from a household, no one reimburses the employer for the financial losses.” Haya continues to whine about how the employer might have to give the employee a travel ticket, blah, blah, blah. And, then, says, “There are many problems associated with drivers. Sometimes the police arrest them after car accidents, which often lead to paying…” Haya, honey, if this is a concern of yours – don’t get a driver. Take a cab. The only place you need to go anyway is the mall and your husband can take you on the weekend or when he gets home from work at night. And, until someone, here, does something about the driving, your chances of getting in an accident are better than not. But, for you to be concerned about the driver getting arrested, Haya, well – this isn’t the attitude I expect from you – so far you didn’t know that these workers were human beings or that they had rights and needs – why are you worried about a driver being arrested? Ahh, of course. It will cost somebody something. Here’s an idea: Since you’ve withheld this person’s pay for the last three or four years, why don’t you use that money to pay the fine? Surely you aren’t concerned about this person languishing in jail… And let’s just for a minute, take a look at why it is that the driver got arrested to begin with. Three words: He’s a foreigner. Everybody knows that only foreigners ever get arrested – they are the only ones ever at fault! It’s never a “local’s” fault! [Forgive me for even thinking so.] We’re still only on this third paragraph, and Haya has about exasperated me! She says, “The running away of employees is a growing and serious problem.” Yes, Haya, it is. The employees are wising up just a bit and realizing that they truly are human beings with rights and needs and that you can no longer abuse them – work them to the bone – lock your food up so they can’t eat – lock them up so they can’t get to the food – and NOT pay them! Goodness gracious. Why would anyone want to flee a situation as idyllic as that? Haya thinks it would be best if “rules and regulations were put into place that punish perpetrators [she is referring to the runaway maids and drivers, here, not the employers!] of such misdeeds.
I honestly don’t know if I can continue with this or not. It is just too unbelievable to me that there has been space in the paper allocated for this article where a large advertisement for our “World’s Largest Hypermarket” could be. I do believe I would much rather know how much a kilogram of carrots costs this week than read what Haya has to say. Certainly the advertisement would be a much more judicious use of newsprint.
Haya says that “we need to protect the rights of domestic employees; especially because some people abuse them by not paying them, overworking them day and night, physically attacking them and forcing them to work in different homes in a single day to collect salaries from different sources. Some people want servants to do multi-role[s] simultaneously as nannies, cooks and maids. I imagine such people are in the minority because in general Saudis by nature are soft and kind.” [You see why I wasn’t sure I could continue?] Haya, in the first paragraph of this article you didn’t know what “abuse” was. And, here, really I’m not quite sure if she believes this is abuse or not. Her last sentence, “I imagine such people are a minority…” She is probably correct. I doubt there are too many more “people” that are abusing their domestic help any more than what is stated here. How could they? I mean, really, what else could they possibly do to them? Amazing that she believes that some of this domestic help should do multiple jobs, i.e., nannies, cooks and maids. Speaking only for me, but when I grew up this was called “my Mother.” When I had my one and only son, it was “me.” I was THE nanny, THE cook and THE maid! [And I worked a full-time job, too!] The very last sentence, where it says, “… by nature are soft and kind.” They are soft, alright. Soft, as in dim, pathetic…
“Problems with employment are increasing and solutions are not forthcoming. There is a necessity to protect different involved parties, especially the citizen who spends an average of SR7,000 to SR8,000 to recruit a domestic servant or driver, an amount that is almost double the salary of a middle class Saudi [this IS monthly salary, not yearly]. So when a maidservant runs away people suffer financially.” Haya, if your income is only SR7,000 to SR8,000 a year, you CANNOT afford domestic help! You don’t have any extra money, so why would you employ a driver to take you to the mall where you can’t afford to buy anything?!? What, then, exactly are you doing with your time while the “maidservant” is cleaning, cooking and tending to your children???
Haya “assumes the implementation of a fingerprint system has become compulsory for the safety of all. This is especially the case since many maids are forced to leave the Kingdom because of acts of crime, immorality and even jeopardizing children’s safety.” [Yes, and they join gangs and take part in sorcery, the females “have babies on the streets” and they create “smelly areas.”] Well, Haya, if these people were given a decent wage, they probably wouldn't have to resort to any crime – hell, never mind given a decent wage! How about just paying them the measly wage you promised them!?! And, at some future point, I will address some of the other aspects of crime – I touched on it ever so briefly with the “supply and demand” theory, yesterday. I am, however, convinced that if all of the husbands of these women who are home abusing “maidservants” and “drivers” weren’t so busy with the other runaway maids that are involved in “immorality,” then there wouldn’t be any immorality! [For goodness sake, you’re allowed more than one wife! And that’s not enough for you? You have to find runaway maids to serve your needs on top of several wives? {Yeah, okay, maybe not the best choice of wording there.}] As far as jeopardizing children’s safety – let’s save this one for another time, also.
“I believe that it is every citizen’s right to protect himself and his wealth, which are being wasted in the employment of such people.” Once again, Haya, and I don’t know how many times I need to explain this to you, if you didn’t have this help, you wouldn’t be “wasting” your money. And, with a salary as you earlier stated, you need to be doing everything you can to protect your wealth. Oh, wait, you are. You don’t pay the help! Well, then, how can the money be wasted? And, Haya, as to “How can an employee return to the Kingdom after being forced out because of criminal convictions, immoral behavior and child abuse?” Oh, I don’t know, let’s just venture to guess that maybe there’s a bit of a pay-off system taking place. The same pay-off system that is used when people like you, as the “employer” are NOT supposed to be able to hire other household help after you’ve been caught abusing the help you had prior. Silly me – we have to wait to have “abuse” defined for us.
“Saudi citizens must be protected from cracks in the system so they don’t continue recruiting more maids each year because the last one ran away and others rebelled after arriving only three months ago.” Haya, I can’t take it anymore! You just don’t get it. And, apparently you never will. This is like a friggin’ hamster wheel! The system is one that will continue in one big never-ending cycle until the end of time here. No sense trying to explain to some people. It is just a waste of time. There is a bit more to the article. Let me know what you think.
It is probably a very, very good thing that I am virtually locked in a gilded cage – locked in! I hate to think how I might conduct myself if ever given the opportunity to confront one of these women and use all my might to make them see the light of day.
[I get this mental picture of a woman lying face down on the ground – no, not me – with another woman pinning the woman on the ground down – that would be me – holding on to the hair of the pinned down woman’s head, slamming it back and forth, back and forth, into the pavement, muttering through clenched teeth, “how can you NOT understand this, WHAT the FUCK is wrong with YOU?!?” over and over and over again… Ahh, now that’s idyllic…]
Haya begins by saying that she respects the Ministry of Labor’s decision to ban citizens found to abuse their maids and drivers from employing domestic workers. We’re both on the same page, so far. We’re not very far down the page, but we’re on the same page. This, however, is where Haya loses me – and we’re only on the very first paragraph! Haya “just wish[es] the ministry would identify the types of abuse such workers suffer so that others can learn and realize that maids and drivers are human beings with rights as well as needs.” Haya, if the Ministry doesn’t identify “the types of abuse” for you, does this mean that you think it is probably okay to beat them with a stick? Not pay them? Force them to work to 140 hours a week? Not let them eat? Chain them up so they can’t “escape?” What, Haya, would constitute abuse in your simple little mind? And, did you not ever think that they were “human beings” to begin with? They are not animals [let’s not even go here!], but they are not robots or clones, either. Do you think that just because they are imported from another country that, unlike you, they wouldn’t have any needs? As far as “rights,” well, this is an issue that I don’t think many employers of domestic help will ever be able to rationalize, so for time and length’s sake, we’ll pass over this, too.
Haya next says that she thinks that the ministry should “support” these employers in cases where “they suffer financial loss or any other harm by the misbehavior of employees or agencies.” But of course. As if the scales of justice weren’t tilted in favor of the “employer” over the “employee” so badly, now, that they about topple over now, let’s just throw the damn “scale” over on its side and get it over with then.
She substantiates this by saying, “when a maidservant [her word, not mine] or driver runs away from a household, no one reimburses the employer for the financial losses.” Haya continues to whine about how the employer might have to give the employee a travel ticket, blah, blah, blah. And, then, says, “There are many problems associated with drivers. Sometimes the police arrest them after car accidents, which often lead to paying…” Haya, honey, if this is a concern of yours – don’t get a driver. Take a cab. The only place you need to go anyway is the mall and your husband can take you on the weekend or when he gets home from work at night. And, until someone, here, does something about the driving, your chances of getting in an accident are better than not. But, for you to be concerned about the driver getting arrested, Haya, well – this isn’t the attitude I expect from you – so far you didn’t know that these workers were human beings or that they had rights and needs – why are you worried about a driver being arrested? Ahh, of course. It will cost somebody something. Here’s an idea: Since you’ve withheld this person’s pay for the last three or four years, why don’t you use that money to pay the fine? Surely you aren’t concerned about this person languishing in jail… And let’s just for a minute, take a look at why it is that the driver got arrested to begin with. Three words: He’s a foreigner. Everybody knows that only foreigners ever get arrested – they are the only ones ever at fault! It’s never a “local’s” fault! [Forgive me for even thinking so.] We’re still only on this third paragraph, and Haya has about exasperated me! She says, “The running away of employees is a growing and serious problem.” Yes, Haya, it is. The employees are wising up just a bit and realizing that they truly are human beings with rights and needs and that you can no longer abuse them – work them to the bone – lock your food up so they can’t eat – lock them up so they can’t get to the food – and NOT pay them! Goodness gracious. Why would anyone want to flee a situation as idyllic as that? Haya thinks it would be best if “rules and regulations were put into place that punish perpetrators [she is referring to the runaway maids and drivers, here, not the employers!] of such misdeeds.
I honestly don’t know if I can continue with this or not. It is just too unbelievable to me that there has been space in the paper allocated for this article where a large advertisement for our “World’s Largest Hypermarket” could be. I do believe I would much rather know how much a kilogram of carrots costs this week than read what Haya has to say. Certainly the advertisement would be a much more judicious use of newsprint.
Haya says that “we need to protect the rights of domestic employees; especially because some people abuse them by not paying them, overworking them day and night, physically attacking them and forcing them to work in different homes in a single day to collect salaries from different sources. Some people want servants to do multi-role[s] simultaneously as nannies, cooks and maids. I imagine such people are in the minority because in general Saudis by nature are soft and kind.” [You see why I wasn’t sure I could continue?] Haya, in the first paragraph of this article you didn’t know what “abuse” was. And, here, really I’m not quite sure if she believes this is abuse or not. Her last sentence, “I imagine such people are a minority…” She is probably correct. I doubt there are too many more “people” that are abusing their domestic help any more than what is stated here. How could they? I mean, really, what else could they possibly do to them? Amazing that she believes that some of this domestic help should do multiple jobs, i.e., nannies, cooks and maids. Speaking only for me, but when I grew up this was called “my Mother.” When I had my one and only son, it was “me.” I was THE nanny, THE cook and THE maid! [And I worked a full-time job, too!] The very last sentence, where it says, “… by nature are soft and kind.” They are soft, alright. Soft, as in dim, pathetic…
“Problems with employment are increasing and solutions are not forthcoming. There is a necessity to protect different involved parties, especially the citizen who spends an average of SR7,000 to SR8,000 to recruit a domestic servant or driver, an amount that is almost double the salary of a middle class Saudi [this IS monthly salary, not yearly]. So when a maidservant runs away people suffer financially.” Haya, if your income is only SR7,000 to SR8,000 a year, you CANNOT afford domestic help! You don’t have any extra money, so why would you employ a driver to take you to the mall where you can’t afford to buy anything?!? What, then, exactly are you doing with your time while the “maidservant” is cleaning, cooking and tending to your children???
Haya “assumes the implementation of a fingerprint system has become compulsory for the safety of all. This is especially the case since many maids are forced to leave the Kingdom because of acts of crime, immorality and even jeopardizing children’s safety.” [Yes, and they join gangs and take part in sorcery, the females “have babies on the streets” and they create “smelly areas.”] Well, Haya, if these people were given a decent wage, they probably wouldn't have to resort to any crime – hell, never mind given a decent wage! How about just paying them the measly wage you promised them!?! And, at some future point, I will address some of the other aspects of crime – I touched on it ever so briefly with the “supply and demand” theory, yesterday. I am, however, convinced that if all of the husbands of these women who are home abusing “maidservants” and “drivers” weren’t so busy with the other runaway maids that are involved in “immorality,” then there wouldn’t be any immorality! [For goodness sake, you’re allowed more than one wife! And that’s not enough for you? You have to find runaway maids to serve your needs on top of several wives? {Yeah, okay, maybe not the best choice of wording there.}] As far as jeopardizing children’s safety – let’s save this one for another time, also.
“I believe that it is every citizen’s right to protect himself and his wealth, which are being wasted in the employment of such people.” Once again, Haya, and I don’t know how many times I need to explain this to you, if you didn’t have this help, you wouldn’t be “wasting” your money. And, with a salary as you earlier stated, you need to be doing everything you can to protect your wealth. Oh, wait, you are. You don’t pay the help! Well, then, how can the money be wasted? And, Haya, as to “How can an employee return to the Kingdom after being forced out because of criminal convictions, immoral behavior and child abuse?” Oh, I don’t know, let’s just venture to guess that maybe there’s a bit of a pay-off system taking place. The same pay-off system that is used when people like you, as the “employer” are NOT supposed to be able to hire other household help after you’ve been caught abusing the help you had prior. Silly me – we have to wait to have “abuse” defined for us.
“Saudi citizens must be protected from cracks in the system so they don’t continue recruiting more maids each year because the last one ran away and others rebelled after arriving only three months ago.” Haya, I can’t take it anymore! You just don’t get it. And, apparently you never will. This is like a friggin’ hamster wheel! The system is one that will continue in one big never-ending cycle until the end of time here. No sense trying to explain to some people. It is just a waste of time. There is a bit more to the article. Let me know what you think.
It is probably a very, very good thing that I am virtually locked in a gilded cage – locked in! I hate to think how I might conduct myself if ever given the opportunity to confront one of these women and use all my might to make them see the light of day.
[I get this mental picture of a woman lying face down on the ground – no, not me – with another woman pinning the woman on the ground down – that would be me – holding on to the hair of the pinned down woman’s head, slamming it back and forth, back and forth, into the pavement, muttering through clenched teeth, “how can you NOT understand this, WHAT the FUCK is wrong with YOU?!?” over and over and over again… Ahh, now that’s idyllic…]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
