Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Double standards by US.US firm found guilty of underpaying Indians at $1.22 an hour.
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by commander; 28 Oct 14,, 21:04.
-
Originally posted by commander View PostBut Sir, please correct me if I am wrong. When a individual works in the US or when someone hires someone to work in the US don't they automatically fall under the US jurisdiction and hence US labour laws are applicable ? If so any previous contracts/agreement/understanding that they had in any other country will automatically becomes void until they get back to their home country, and the fact whether they were hired specifically or not doesn't come in to play.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostOne of the biggest points that was made in the DK case was that US authorities would have done the same for anybody else. Now comes the proof in the pudding. Here we got a company with executives engaging in visa fraud as you have alluded to and the only treatment we have seen is no indictment charges, no arrest warrants for visa fraud, only slaps of fines and monetary damages.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostI don't know. There are so many grey areas. I know Indian software producers pushing sales in North America don't get paid in North American wages, ie they're selling a product, nor working on a project but come time for software installation ... do you count that as a product sale or work?
There was a project in the US called Blueseed where they had a ship anchored in the International waters outside the jurisdiction of US laws and the US couldn't do much about it since the actual work per se was not done in US soil, even though they were the residents of the United States of America / were allowed to visit the country in tourism visas' due to the clamps put on H1B visa's. I am guessing it's similar to that
Blueseed
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThis part is not correct. The Indian professionals were already working for EFI in India. They were tasked with a project that had some dealings within the US. They were not hired specifically for this project.
Just because I was tasked to the US does not mean I get paid in US wages
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostWas there visa fraud? A lot of things are missing. Even in India, these guys don't work for $1.20 an hour.
Just calculated how much they are paid,
1.20$= 73.42Rs.
per day income = 73.42 x 8 = 587.36Rs
per month = 587.36 x 30 = 17,621 Rs.
Which IS actually inline with what some of the freshers get paid here. When I started not so long back (about 2 years back) I was getting around 12,000Rs per month which translates to 50Rs/hour ~1$ in 2009 and 2010 onwards. I would say these are lucky guys if they are freshers though to getting paid 17k a month as a starter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostI don't know. There are so many grey areas. I know Indian software producers pushing sales in North America don't get paid in North American wages, ie they're selling a product, nor working on a project but come time for software installation ... do you count that as a product sale or work?
The EFI violations of state and federal labor laws concerned eight employees who were paid to help install a computer network when the company moved its home office from Foster City to Fremont, according to the Mercury News. The data storage provider said that it had brought in some of its IT employees from Bangalore, India, to do the jobs in Fremont between Sept. 8, 2013 and Dec. 21, 2013
Comment
-
Originally posted by commander View PostNo she was considered a junior consulate which according to the US authorities is not enough to provide her immunity. But India was contending that she was a consulate no matter what position she was in and is automatically eligible for immunity. When the US didn't budge we promoted her to a UN mission which by default provided her the immunity the US authorities said she didn't have and they had to let her go. There was misunderstanding on both sides on this part on who was right.
Probably was deliberately clogged or just wasn't juicy enough for the daily's ;)
"According to U.S. authorities"?????
They fall under The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which are both internatiinal treaties.
Consulate officers enjoy VCCR and diplomats enjoy VCDR and they are similar but not that same.
There is/was no misunderstanding. India was plainly wrong on that issue.
And the Indian govt. might "promote" her to UN Mission but that doesn't make it so until the host nation (U.S.) approves that status.
If the U.S. didn't want to "budge" she wouldn't have been approved for the new status and she wouldn't have been allowed to get on a plane for home.Last edited by YellowFever; 28 Oct 14,, 21:40.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostNow you confuse me because in the past your position was that once on US soil, US law takes precedence even over contracts. That was the point you drew from the DK episode. Now you are saying since the contract was entered into on Indian soil and was tasked to US, the contract still runs supreme. Can you clarify your position?Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by gf0012-aust View PostI'm not in position to cite US Law, but I would have expected that Visa Fraud charges can only be directly applied to the passport/visa holder
anyone else involved in promoting that activity would need to be prosecuted and pursued at the country where that activity was initiated, at some point there would be persons at the arrival/delivery end who could be gathered up under the umbrella of being accessories etc.....
Business Visas are applied for by the employing company. If EFI was the employing party then they would be prosecuted. If these were employees of some contracting company then that contracting company would be prosecuted."Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
Comment
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostWhat are you smoking?
"According to U.S. authorities"?????
They fall under The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which is an international treaty.
Consulate officers enjoy VCCR and diplomats enjoy VCDR and they are similar but not that same.
There is/was no misunderstanding. India was plainly wrong on that issue.
And the Indian govt. might "promote" her to UN Mission but that doesn't make it so until the host nation (U.S.) approves that status.
If the U.S. didn't want to "budge" she wouldn't have been approved for the new status and she wouldn't have been allowed to get on a plane for home.
Anyway, it was my understanding of how it worked and from what I have seen around. When I said misunderstanding do note I included my country as well. I didn't say the US authorities solely created this mess. Please tell me in simple words then what kind of immunity does a diplomat don't have that a consulate has ? I understand lets say for crimes like murder or espionage things are different but don't a diplomat enjoy a basic immunity from being prosecuted and strip searched for not paying the maid enough ? I mean the maid was free to go where ever she liked , it was not like she was chained in the basement of DK's house or being drugged and kept unconscious was she ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThis part is not correct. The Indian professionals were already working for EFI in India. They were tasked with a project that had some dealings within the US. They were not hired specifically for this project.
Just because I was tasked to the US does not mean I get paid in US wages
Part of this is to prevent job loss by preventing low wages to foreign workers within the US."Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
Comment
-
Originally posted by antimony View PostThe rule of not working under a business visa is a rule by US Immigration authorities, no Indian law is being broken.
Business Visas are applied for by the employing company. If EFI was the employing party then they would be prosecuted. If these were employees of some contracting company then that contracting company would be prosecuted.Last edited by commander; 28 Oct 14,, 21:54.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostI don't know. There are so many grey areas. I know Indian software producers pushing sales in North America don't get paid in North American wages, ie they're selling a product, nor working on a project but come time for software installation ... do you count that as a product sale or work?
If the answer to the first is "within the US", then the worker HAS to have a work visa and is subject to US laws. The nature of the work and nature of employment contract may determine the type of visa.
If the Indian software producers are employing people in the US, they are subject to the exact same laws."Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
Comment
Comment