Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double standards by US.US firm found guilty of underpaying Indians at $1.22 an hour.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I'm thinking the military example here. Working on US bases does not change my pay nor my obligations.
    That's because you were working on a NATO visa and through NATO terms and agreements and repricocity, you were exempt from many of the requirements. However if you brought a personal employee, that employee was subject to US and state labor laws. See here:

    http://hermosillo.usconsulate.gov/ro.../visasnato.pdf

    Under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), certain representatives and staff from member countries can enter the US as temporary visas. Under the treaty, they are not subject to normal immigration inspections and documentary requirements. Instead, consular officials decide whether they are admitted. Admission is for as long as the Secretary of State recognizes their status. Employment authorization is obtained through the State Department.

    An applicant is classified under the symbol NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 if seeking admission to the United States under the applicable provision of the Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty. This includes, national representatives, international staff and immediate family members of an individual classified NATO-1 through NATO-6.
    However, many armed forces personnel are exempt from passport and visa requirements if they are either attached to NATO Allied Headquarters in the United States and are traveling on official business, or are entering the United States under NATO Status of Forces Agreement. In the case of the later, they must carry official military ID cards and NATO travel orders. When traveling in exempt status, such personnel would generally be entering the United States by military aircraft or naval vessel.
    What are the different type of NATO Visa's?
    There are different type of NATO Visa can be issued to alien, these are:
    1. NATO-1 Representative of NATO and their immediate relatives.
      2.- NATO-2 Representative of NATO and their immediate relatives other than NATO-1.
      3.- NATO-3 Employees of NATO and their immediate relatives.
      4.- NATO-4 Other employees of NATO and their immediate relatives.
      5.- NATO-5 Engineers of NATO and their responsible families.
      6.- NATO-6 Military workers of NATO and their responsible families.
      7.- NATO-7 Maids of NATO-1 through NATO-6 and their immediate relatives.
    Personal Employees
    Personal employees, attendants, domestic workers, or servants of individuals who hold a valid NATO-1 through NATO-6 visa, may be issued a NATO-7 visa, if he/she meets the requirements. As part of the application process an interview at the embassy or consulate is required. Proof that you will receive a fair wage, sufficient to financially support yourself, comparable to that being offered in the area of employment in the U.S. is required. In addition, you'll need to demonstrate that you will perform the contracted employment duties. The consular officer will determine whether you are eligible for the NATO-7 visa.

    To apply for a NATO-7 visa, the visa applicant must submit each of the items explained in the How to Apply - Required Documentation section above.
    Employment Contract - In addition to the above, accompanying the visa application and supporting documents, an employment contract is required, which must be signed by both the employer and the employee. The contract must include each of the following items:
    1. The contract must be in English and also in a language understood by the employee to ensure the employee understands his or her duties and rights regarding salary and working conditions;
      2.A guarantee the employee will be compensated at the state or federal minimum or prevailing wage, whichever is greater. Any money deducted for food or lodging, is limited to that which is considered reasonable. (Note: Fair prevailing wage is determined by the consular officer using the Department of Labor Alien Labor Certification/Occupational Employment Survey prevailing wage statistics by occupation and metropolitan area.)
      3.A statement by the employee, promising not to accept any other employment while working for the employer;
      4.A statement by the employer, promising to not withhold the passport of the employee; and
      5.A statement indicating that both parties understand that the employee cannot be required to remain on the premises after working hours without compensation.

    The employer must pay the domestic's initial travel expenses to the United States, and subsequently to the employer's onward assignment, or to the employee's country of normal residence at the termination of the assignment

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
      What are you smoking?

      "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.
      No she wasn't because there was a gentleman's agreement regarding maids and personal employees just as the one between India and US with US's school for profit as part of US consulate in New Delhi.

      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.
      Then certain family members of the US embassy staff would have not been allowed to go home because they would have been charged with tax evasion and fraud. Goes both ways.
      Last edited by Blademaster; 28 Oct 14,, 22:07.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by commander View Post
        Haha I hope some high quality shit .

        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 ?

        Hah, send me some of that good stuff.


        A Brief History of U.S. Diplomacy


        Towards the bittom of that page should give you some ideas.

        You could make the arguments that the authority handling the DK case could have been more prudent considering the politics involved but how they handled it was well within their right to do so.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by commander View Post
          But weren't they already PART of the company ? i.e. they were not just hired for the sake of taking them to the US but rather were identified as talented men in their organization that were chosen to help the company move it's network from one place to another ? How does a contractor come under picture. Even if we consider them to be working for a contractor who provides manpower to EFI when EFI chose them to be flown to USA they become the responsibility of EFI and not the contractor ?
          If they were company employees then they would have (should have) been brought to the US under L1 visa (intra-company transfer). They could also have used H1B visas but companies have moved away from that (as employees can jump ship under H1B, not possible under L1).

          Either way (L1 or H1B), they would automatically have become US employees, filled up an i9, got their SSNs and be no different from, TopHatter or Yellowfever n gterms of applicability of US labor laws. H1B has a requirement that the worker must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for the chosen occupation, whichever is higher. There is a extensive wage database that gives the prevailing wage : FLCDataCenter.com

          for L1 I am not aware of a minimum wage but I am sure companies would take precautions not t go below the market rate to avoid DOL problems.
          "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


          • #95
            Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
            Hah, send me some of that good stuff.
            I think you have had quite enough by now.

            A Brief History of U.S. Diplomacy


            Towards the bittom of that page should give you some ideas.

            You could make the arguments that the authority handling the DK case could have been more prudent considering the politics involved but how they handled it was well within their right to do so.
            See Note 2: "This table presents general rules. Particularly in the cases indicated, the employees of certain foreign countries may enjoy higher levels of privileges and immunities on the basis of special bilateral agreements."

            The Indian embassy maintained that there was a gentleman's agreement wrt to personal staff and were shocked when that agreement was not adhered to in DK's case.

            Comment


            • #96
              And YF, about the US not budging part and that had US not agreed on the status being the host nation part. India started to clamp down hard on your folks here in Delhi and had them surrender their ID's issued by GoI that gave them some special access and privileges that no other countrymen enjoys. So it wasn't that you gracefully accepted the status and let us flow our diplomat out of US ;) you were forced to.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                Yes she was. Your assertion of DK not being a diplomat flies in the face of diplomatic credentials already established through the UN.
                She was not credentialed as a diplomat through the US State Department. She was a consular official a different category.


                And that makes it ok to arrest and strip search an Indian diplomat?
                She wasn't a diplomat and was personally involved with what amounted to slavery.


                Only in your dreams you would think I would be having a meltdown.
                And I still enjoyed watching you do it.


                again you are so fond of using window dressing words when the substance was not there. What racial comments did I make? Flinging out claims that racist comments were made does not make it true as it has become your customary habit.
                Go back and re-read your words to BF. Swap out the word colonialist for white. As far as I know BF hasn't colonized anything but his arm chair. it was a racial epitaph. You said it, you own it.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  She was not credentialed as a diplomat through the US State Department. She was a consular official a different category.
                  Still entitled to some form of immunity and subject to a gentleman's agreement

                  She wasn't a diplomat and was personally involved with what amounted to slavery.
                  Really? Slavery?? then how did the maid have complete freedom of movement and she was happy until she realized that she wasn't getting any more money and tried to blackmail DK? Your slapping lipstick on a pig attempts of window dressing it as slavery does not obliterate the fact that there was no prima facie of slavery and there was no justification for an arrest and strip search.

                  And I still enjoyed watching you do it.
                  Enjoy your fantasy and whatever you have been smoking. Oh by the way, Yellow wants some more. Humor him if you can.

                  Go back and re-read your words to BF. Swap out the word colonialist for white. As far as I know BF hasn't colonized anything but his arm chair. it was a racial epitaph. You said it, you own it.
                  Read again, genius and it was in response to BF's snide remark about the colonial past. He said it, he owned it and whatever response that came next.
                  Last edited by Blademaster; 28 Oct 14,, 22:28.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Go back and re-read your words to BF. Swap out the word colonialist for white. As far as I know BF hasn't colonized anything but his arm chair. it was a racial epitaph. You said it, you own it.
                    You are the one who brought white/ brown into this debate. If this issue was raised by someone whose skin color meets your approval (like BF) would your reaction be different?
                    "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 Blademaster View Post
                      I think you have had quite enough by now.



                      See Note 2: "This table presents general rules. Particularly in the cases indicated, the employees of certain foreign countries may enjoy higher levels of privileges and immunities on the basis of special bilateral agreements."

                      The Indian embassy maintained that there was a gentleman's agreement wrt to personal staff and were shocked when that agreement was not adhered to in DK's case.

                      Originally posted by commander View Post
                      And YF, about the US not budging part and that had US not agreed on the status being the host nation part. India started to clamp down hard on your folks here in Delhi and had them surrender their ID's issued by GoI that gave them some special access and privileges that no other countrymen enjoys. So it wasn't that you gracefully accepted the status and let us flow our diplomat out of US ;) you were forced to.

                      Great.

                      Get back to me when either of you have anything more concrete than "But they said....."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                        Great.

                        Get back to me when either of you have anything more concrete than "But they said....."
                        But where did I say "they said" ? All I said was that we forced you to acknowledge the immunity status and had the diplomat released. And the double standards by the US law enforcement in the land of free.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                          Great.

                          Get back to me when either of you have anything more concrete than "But they said....."
                          Then do your reading homework. Go read the closed thread and pore through the various news reports and articles that were put forth for your reading dissemination.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            Then do your reading homework. Go read the closed thread and pore through the various news reports and articles that were put forth for your reading dissemination.
                            You made that statement.

                            It's up to you to back it up and bring it here.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by commander View Post
                              Well not to drag this further, here are the similarities in both the cases and that's not,

                              DK:

                              1. Domestic help hired in India with an agreement that salary will be paid in Indian rupees (whatever the sum maybe) + accommodation + food + her regular week off's.
                              2. The maid understood she was being ripped off after getting to know the minimum wage and the technicality that if a domestic worker is hired for one's house that doesn't come under Indian jurisdiction rather US laws are applicable, so the contract she had with DK in India is not applicable.
                              3. The maid filed a case on DK with the help of PB the prosecutor and with his help deports her entire family from India to the US.
                              4. Charges are on the basis of the visa fraud and some here even accused that of being a human trafficking. Fair enough.
                              5. US authorities contended even though she is a consular her immunity doesn't apply outside the consulate (?)
                              6. She gets arrested in public and a strip search and allegedly cavity search was carried out.

                              EFI:

                              1.The firm hired a few Indian professionals with an agreement made in India that promised them a certain salary in rupees + allowances to take care of their accommodation and food.
                              2. The employees understood they are being ripped off and one of them complains to the authorities.
                              3. The authorities slap charges against the company and it's directors and were asked to pay a fine and were let go.


                              THIS is what we were complaining about. Why is one more serious than the other ?
                              a: we dont actually know who complained. the tip off was anonymous.

                              here is the crucial difference: in the efi case the complaint was made to civil authorities alleginging underpayment. in the dk case the accusation was made by the maid herself to criminal authorities alleging trafficking.

                              the two completely different handling came as a result of the nature of the complaint and the recipient authorities.

                              if the workers had made similar allegations that they were held against their will, the management may well have been arrested and booked into jail, in which case a strip search would have been standard procedure.

                              its not the serious of what actually occured. its the nature of the complaint and the avenue.

                              also, the directors did not pay a fine. the company paid a fine. no allegations were leveled personally vs the directors.
                              Last edited by citanon; 29 Oct 14,, 00:58.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                                You are the one who brought white/ brown into this debate. If this issue was raised by someone whose skin color meets your approval (like BF) would your reaction be different?
                                Skin color that meets my approval.... What ever gave you the idea that skin color mattered to me? lets see- defense of Palestinians who are dark skinned, defense of, admiration of and friends with of Colonel Yu a Canadian of Chinese defense, statements that I wish Condolezza Rice would run for office, public statements complaining about how blacks are treated in the US, statements about how the British in India committed a genocide, admiration of Persian culture, a personal religious faith that blends Christianity and Native American faiths, 2 mixed race ex-wives with 3 mixed race kids, specialized in tutoring foreign exchange and students of color.... Yup I sure am hung up on skin color.

                                BM brought in his usual racist snarkyness and I called him on it. You tried to be just as snarky but snarked up the wrong tree there snarkester.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X