When I was posted to Riyadh, I was taking my kids to Jeddah for a weekend and while in the airport I saw a similar family arrangement with really out of control kids and the parents seeming to think this was not their issue at all. One of the kids stole a toy dinosaur that my kid had momentarily put down - I saw its tail sticking out of his back pocket - and I went to the maid and she was so terrified it seemed like she was not going to tell the bosses but in the end she must have, as the father brought the dinosaur back to me. I still remember how appalling the kids were and how scared the maid seemed. And these were really young kids, about 4 or so.

So I agree it is a real big problem and needs solving. However, though I can understand business incentives, these abuses of domestics happen in houses and often on the informal economy. How can any public policy remedy this?

Anna, the problem isn't just in the informal economy, but also that the people involved have no recourse outside of that economy either. Sure, you still see eg. spousal abuse in Western countries, but at least if a woman has finally had ENOUGH, there's places she can go and mechanisms to seek redress. These are either not there at all, or effectively not there, for asian migrants.

Further complications:

- Most asian-country embassies are poorly staffed, often by a part-timer with another actual job. Even when the local staff are interested enough to help out one of their nationals, they are not always backed up by their governments, which need the income they get from remittances and are loath to risk that by making difficulties for the Gulf countries over little things like abusive employers.

- A lot of people are hired under false pretenses by agents in their home countries, arriving to expect, yes, hard work and crowded living conditions, but not the utter hell they often find themselves in. This came up in Iraq, I think, where a number of the asian workers various multinationals had hired had expected to be going to the UAE or suchlike.

Hey eerie,

Well-written, and a VERY important topic, but I must disagree on one thing. I don't see how you can say that such a phenomenon is NOT brought on by capitalism. I know everyone is going to begin attacking, but whether or not you think the actual process of temporary migration for domestic work is good or bad, the truth is that such migration is DIRECTLY brought on by the exploitation of the worker, due to capitalism. That is the truth. Of course, in many cases these women need jobs, and so as long as there exists an internatinoally recognized labour code of rights for such workers (that is actually applied), I don't see a problem with it.

But saying this is not a direct, and yes NEGATIVE, product of our little perfect capitalist system...no, that's far fetched.

I was going to try and do a little research by combing through this enormous friggin list of (it must be hundreds of) organizations working with migrant workers around the world, but my eyes glazed over halfway into the c's.

So I'm just going to dump a pointer here in comments to Asian Migrant News a news summary service of news about, well, asian migrants. The headlines for their latest issue (of December 31, 2005) from the Middle East:

BAHRAIN

* Training institutes used as front for entry of free visa workers
* Four stranded Filipino seafarers return home
* Pakistani driver accused of document forgery
* Indian worker found dead
* Bahraini women can sponsor foreign husbands: Supreme Council for Women

ISRAEL
* Govt slammed not protecting migrant workers’ rights
* Irregular migrant workers held, deported in 2005
* Residency granted to migrant workers’ children born in Israel
* Palestinian gunmen kidnap 2 foreign teachers

KUWAIT

* Repatriation of stranded Filipino workers

OMAN

* Envoy lauds Filipino workers’ contribution to RP economy

SAUDI ARABIA

* Medical services readied for 700,000 Haj pilgrims
* Filipino worker arrested for murder of Saudi
* Lawyer appeals court verdict on Indian worker

UAE

* Re-entry regulations for workers on labor ban clarified
* EIDA preparing to collect information for new database
* Request for suspension of labor inspections
* Labor inspections to continue despite two-day holiday
* New decree issued regarding labor card renewal
* 50% of RAK private clinics employ unlicensed nurses
* 118 Chinese workers in protest march nabbed
* 22 Filipino workers stranded in Dubai
* Filipina victims need lawyer
* Visa racket victim rescued from Dubai creekside
* Extradition of Sri Lankan worker in murder case sought
* Irregular migrant gets 5-month jail term
* Arab national jailed for rape of 2 Asian domestic workers

They have a huge (8-year) biweekly archive. Lot of stuff there if someone feels up to the slog.

Well-written, and a VERY important topic, but I must disagree on one thing. I don't see how you can say that such a phenomenon is NOT brought on by capitalism

Because exploitive abusive labour conditions existed very nicely in non-capitalist countries, that's why my dear young innocent. Indeed the old Sov bloc was positively brilliant in its own way in exploiting.

You can put directly in caps all you bloody well like, it remains irrelevant.

In fact, with respect to UAE abuses, the structure there is not really capitalist at all, but old fashioned rent-seeking quasi feudalism. The domestic servants, consumption for show and ex-"off shore" economy (i.e. the actually rationally run firms, that's capitalism), are hallmarks of traditional culture and rentier economies, not capitalism, whatever superficial illiterate tripe you were fed during your 'education.'

On the contrary, I'd say the particular mechanism in the UAE - the use of modern categories of citizenship & of the constant threat of deportation to keep the entire workforce in line - is peculiar to modern legal & political structures.

I don't think - and I'd welcome correction on this - that temporary contract workers in the Gulf have fewer rights than those on similar visas in other countries. It's just that (1) this category embraces essentially the entire workforce and (2) the Gulfies are more ruthless (or at least more open) about using this power imbalance to shut down opposition & dissent than those elsewhere.

but I must disagree on one thing. I don't see how you can say that such a phenomenon is NOT brought on by capitalism

Well, if we're going to blame capitalism for worker exploitation, we should also blame it for allowing these workers to be productive by responding to a labour demand outside their home country (and sending that money home to their families, who might otherwise starve or be forced into more unsavoury occupations).

Poor people in this part of the world aren't choosing between good and bad, they're choosing between bad and unspeakable, or even dead.

UAE's labour exploitation is a policy failure, not an "ideological" failure. If they started enforcing regs, things would surely improve, even though it was still a "capitalist model". However, the widespread acceptance of this treatment by the locals (including what some do to their servants at home) suggests to me that there is little or no domestic pressure on the government to change or enforce labour policies. The belief that certain groups of people should be treated this way is to me a bigger obstacle to improvement than capitalism at large.

I believe this is in response to me:
On the contrary, I'd say the particular mechanism in the UAE - the use of modern categories of citizenship & of the constant threat of deportation to keep the entire workforce in line - is peculiar to modern legal & political structures.

Hardly peculiar to modern legal & political structures.

The habits of the Khalije are those of traditional economies, using modern tools, but otherwise utterly rentier in their oreintation. Deportation? Hardly modern concept, indeed the threat of being being deported en masse is something the Ottomans, for example, indulged in against troublesome groups.

I don't think - and I'd welcome correction on this - that temporary contract workers in the Gulf have fewer rights than those on similar visas in other countries. It's just that (1) this category embraces essentially the entire workforce and (2) the Gulfies are more ruthless (or at least more open) about using this power imbalance to shut down opposition & dissent than those elsewhere.

Similar to who?

Europe? Certainly not. Other developing countries? Depends. The Khalije is somewhat unusual in its massive reliance on "guest workers" - which in the labourer category it treats not that much differently than slaves. Certainly the mentality is there (although I also would maintain that there are significant differences).

In short, anyone maintaining this behaviour is particularly "capitalistic" or "modern" just doesn't know their history and has weak to illiterate understanding of liberal economics.

Period.

However, to throw the Khalijine a bone, it's hard to imagine many societies in the world managing such a massive reliance on 'alien' workers in a particularly liberal manner. Massive numbers of foreign workers is dangerous to any small state. Emiratis are a minority in their own country, that has to do strange things to their sense of identity. Add to that the very real fact they were country bumpkins only two generations ago, or so, and it makes for a strange situation.

Re Anna's question (domestics happen in houses and often on the informal economy. How can any public policy remedy this?), I would respond that rather simply there is either a real governmental commitment to enforcing standards or...

Now the horns of the 'immigrant' status versus enforcing rights is certainly something that crops up elsewhere, including North American and Europe. It's not easy to resolve, but certainly the openly abusive behaviour one sees in Khalije and related environments (as in the Levante) is too stigmatised for one to get away. A start, although imperfect.

I'm going to sustain my objection - the ottomans used threats of deportation? Fine, the ottomans did many things that look more or less modern, except not as finely-grained.

I guess I don't actually see the point in assigning BLAME to capitalism (or modern governance, or modern capitalism, or the Neoliberal Economic Order or what-have-you) for migrants' problems. It's a tool (or a package of tools) for exerting power, and the way in which it is used is determined by who is making the decisions. But to deny that the existence of a category of person whose right to stay in a country is conditioned upon his (or her) continued employment is a feature of the modern world, and that this as a mass feature at least is a new phenomenon, is to make it more difficult to pull the phenomenon apart and figure out how it is used as a tool of oppression (again for want of a better word).

Which understanding could be used in theory I guess for the betterment of the human condition, but I just like pulling ideas apart to see how they work.

(Were there other ways of oppressing, under other circumstances? Of course. Many of them were much worse, and all of them were different.)

Well, the situation is perhaps comparable to serfdom even though the levers are different. While serfs were bound to the land and forced to work it in return for the right to use small plots of land for farming, modern UAE migrants are bound to their jobs and forced to work under bad conditions in order to maintain the right to live in the UAE and obtain income.

One could argue that the serf "class" has been institutionalized and repackaged in the UAE work visa system, and strengthened by informal practices such as the confiscation of passports and the witholding of wages. In this regard, one can blame the government for maintaining and encouraging this practice via policy decisions.

the ottomans used threats of deportation?

Even better, they effected mass deportations.

But to deny that the existence of a category of person whose right to stay in a country is conditioned upon his (or her) continued employment is a feature of the modern world, and that this as a mass feature at least is a new phenomenon, is to make it more difficult to pull the phenomenon apart and figure out how it is used as a tool of oppression (again for want of a better word).

Well, rewind 100 to 200 years and these same workers were slaves. Or indentured servants if we're looking at Euro colonies with similar "bondage" conditions. See Indian and Chinese indentured labour throughout the UK Empire post slavery.

Certainly modern technology, transport technology allows a new kind of 'indentured servitude' - which is what the lower end of UAE and in general Gulf practice looks like in general.

Blaming a particular economic system, 'capitalism' for instance, for this type of behaviour betrays a rather superficial knowledge and understanding of the relevant history.

Regardless, the key here is while the specifics are modern and possible because of new transport technology, the actual application and patterns are not "capitalist" but traditional and even pre-modern.

Of course, as well, you can find plenty of forced labour in the history of Soviet bloc. It rather seems clear to me that if one leaves aside the cartoonishly simple-minded ideological concept of economic history, it is clear that forced labour or similar structures are hardly predicated on "capitalism."

Right. I don't think we're actually arguing about anything. Cheers.