Comment by suprgeek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by suprgeek | Hacker News Reader

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 much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article".

The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensation is in the form of "perks" that help in their day-to-day lives - this "au pair" benefit is one such perk.

While in the US this "au pair" ran away despite being (apparently [2]) treated well. Then there are serious allegations that she contacted a lawyer thru whom she tried to extort the diplomat [3].

No one is implying that having a "servant" is a right. Having an "au pair" was an accepted & Authorized perk. The article starts off with a wrong-headed premise and does some hand-waving from there.

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 for the real motivation behind this incident.

[1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragad...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The...

[3] http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-dema...

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.

'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.

The elephant in the room with all this is that America has its own big problems in this area. The illegal immigrant workers from Mexico and other places seem to have issues with wages, employment rights and other things. Let's not even talk about the big daddy of them all on the corporate side, Walmart with its wage issues.

So, before Americans start feeling smug about how they set the standards for the rest of the world, please look in your own back yard. It's not that much prettier.

"So, before Americans start feeling smug about how they set the standards for the rest of the world, please look in your own back yard."

That's a very tired criticism/complaint. The points made were fair and if you don't think so then argue those points. Making generalizations that Americans should not share their thoughts on injustices outside the ones our government, corporations, and/or citizens create is absurd. Which nation is without problems of their own? Does that disqualify then anyone from making any statements on human rights (as in this case)?

actually - the world would actually better off if everyone cleaned their own backyards before poking into their neighbours business!

That is probably true, but it is totally unrealistic. Should we all remain silent in the face of such abuses until we have made our own "backyards" clean?

"...only those without sin should cast the first stone. [This] is so relativistic and "nonjudgmental" that it would not allow the prosecution of Charles Manson. Our few notions of justice have had to evolve despite these absurd codes of ultra vindictiveness and ultracompassion." - Christopher Hitchens

#2 - also the ones the US randomly decides are terorrists and bombs "humanely" from Drones? Get off your fricking high horse and look in your own backyard mate. The hypocrisy of this is bordering on hilarious. She may be earning below minimum wage in the US - but its in no way inhumane or exploitative - at 4$ an hour - she's earning more than any maid or servant in India.

why are you so stunned that people can be inhumane? Have you looked into how all those clothes you rushed so madly to buy on black friday are so dirt cheap? Or that iphone? There are people in the west who are equally or even more inhumane - being distant from the inhumanity is just washing your hands off it. Make statements like those - if you're someone who only buys things produced fairly and the makers of which pay minimum wages to their employees - otherwise you're as inhumane as the next guy - but just have the luxury of being able to ignore it and feel good for yourself because you're not directly involved.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, good point. That would seem to be a clear exception to what I wrote.

That's murky relevancy since there was a self-defense angle to it.

AFAIK she lacked diplomatic immunity and only had consular immunity, i.e. immunity only extending to consular functions.

The maid in question could have refused to work and returned back to India - but the reality which most Americans dont want to accept is that she would have gotten a salary 1/10 of what she was making there.

So she played the american justice system very intelligently. But this is all OK - if anything that is not what is causing the resentment.

There is also a case of overreach here. The woman has a case in India registered because she went absconding. Now let's take this in context - India is the only country which has suffered worse in international terrorism. So a maid going AWOL in the US is a pretty big deal.

what the American embassy did was unbelievable - get US visas for the whole family of the maid and fly her to the US without going through the Indian authorities.

This has everyone pissed mad coming after the heels of the Americans denying access to 26/11 accused Headley. Ergo the anger.

> 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.

I remember when that happened. There were some Americans who were upset that the young man was going to be caned, but there were plenty of other Americans who wholeheartedly approved of the caning and wished we had in here in this country.

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.

Getting a fraction of the wage the law requires => treated well

Demanding the wage the law requires => extortion

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?

You can't "run away" from a job in the US. You can leave whenever you want.

Being able to obtain the visa is fine, but the servant should have been paid properly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com