Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

As someone who lives in the Emirates, I have to object to the allegation of "slaves." This is not slavery. It's indentured servitude, which is definitely distressing but not quite of the same character.

Most importantly, in the talks I've had with workers, the vast majority of them still are happy to have these jobs despite the conditions. They're paid an order of magnitude more than they make in Nepal and if you go to poor Nepalese villages you'll see entire families building new houses based on earnings from sons who went to work in the gulf.

Finally, it's important to note that there's pretty drastic variation in how workers are treated in different firms. Certainly none have ideal working conditions, but the majority are legal and passable. It's the truly horrible ones which actually trigger government investigations (and, sadly enough, many of the worst firms are actually run by overseas businessmen.).

View on HN

>This is not slavery. It's indentured servitude

Considering wages are being held and passports are taken, I'd say the use of the word slave is justified.

>Most importantly, in the talks I've had with workers, the vast majority of them still are happy to have these jobs despite the conditions.

Survivor bias. The ones who haven't been killed or run away like working there (or are too scared to tell you otherwise).

> Considering wages are being held and passports are taken, I'd say the use of the word slave is justified.

Slavery has a very unambiguous definition -- people are treated as property where they're traded and sold, and forced to work. If passports are being collected and passed around in a slavery market then I'd agree with you, but as it stands there is no such evidence of that.

...as it stands there is no such evidence of that.

There have certainly been allegations of it, including on this comment page. Why should we assume the best possible interpretation of how Qatari projects might be staffed with manual labor? Based on the little I've learned, any assumptions I make are more likely to go in the other direction.

Personally I refuse to entertain conjecture and hearsay, so I have no interest in making any assumptions or interpretations.

Maybe I'm dense, but your comment above reads to me as if you're assuming: "nothing to see here, move along!"

The article is talking about their not being paid, which means we're back into slavery again. Indentured servitude is also banned in the civilised world, so that's probably not a good way to defend yourself.

Indentured servitude is debt bondage made explicitly so (contractually). When a worker says, "we were compelled to come just to make a living, but we've had no luck", that seems like they've been tricked into working as indentured servants without prior knowledge.

I think pretty much all of them are well aware that the cost of flying them to the Gulf far exceeds their savings and they won't have the funds to fly back of their own accord before their contract is up. It's not one of these trafficking situations where they've been told they've been found a nice domestic service job in the capital and they subsequently end up in an underground brothel in another country.

They have good reason to expect to have access to food and their post-deduction wages though.

> It's not one of these trafficking situations where they've been told they've been found a nice domestic service job in the capital and they subsequently end up in an underground brothel in another country.

Exactly. Honestly, it's very telling that the vast majority of migrant workers in the gulf are men. They're doing hard manual labor, in admittedly poor conditions, but that is by and large what they signed up for.

> They have good reason to expect to have access to food and their post-deduction wages though.

Agreed. And that's why the instances where they don't even receive that are so alarming and do trigger government investigations.

Not at all. Almost none of them have enough to pay their recruitment or travel fees, so they fully understand that for a time all their wages will go towards that.

I fail to see how retaining pay until a hiring debt is paid off isn't the very definition of indentured servitude.

Do you think they'd be paid in full at the end of their period? From the pattern of treatment described in the article, I'd expect it's common for them to be left unpaid or underpaid at the close.

> I'd expect it's common for them to be left unpaid or underpaid at the close.

Unpaid, no. It's extremely rare for an employer to not pay anything ever. Underpaid, definitely—between extra "fees" and deductions, many workers end up with less than they expected (but still more than they'd make back home).

For a mere 20 year old, you sure speak with advanced lashings of ponce and confidence on subjects of which you know not.

> For a mere 20 year old, you sure speak with advanced lashings of ponce and confidence on subjects of which you know not.

Having lived in the gulf and thoroughly read the human rights reports in the region, I'd wager I know a lot more about the situation than most HN commenters. But sure, go ahead an attack my age. Everyone knows ad hominem attacks are the best kind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com