Exploitation of employee or blackmail of employer? (Khobragade case) - Page 32

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

hey this is so heartwarming, your attempts to extract the pearls of wisdom above. But really, one should start simple before getting to the high IQ stuff. With that in mind, can you now say banana?😆


I once adopted a pet monkey
Initially found him quite spunky
Named the primate BirdieNumNum
Curse you Petango, for he's an obnoxious bum

He demanded constant mention
Always craved for unusual attention
Even when I gave him some miraculous manna
He seemed to desire an overripe banana

I had enough of his crazy
What would I do with a monkey that lazy
Sent him packing to the nearest zoo
At some point I had to bid adieu

Coming back to topic, even your latest quip about devyani not needing a maid unless she made the maid work hard is absurd. Things don't have to be one extreme or the other. For all we know, the actual labor might have been just a couple of hours, with the other hours being light.

It doesn't matter how many hours of "actual work" is involved in a job. It's a managed service that Sangeeta provided on an ongoing basis. If I hire a tech support guy to take calls, I have to pay him whatever was agreed upon, regardless of the call volume.

We do not really know.

So, you are saying, you got nothing new to add at this point. But I already knew that.

Also, having a live-in maid can be mutually beneficial. It saves costs both ways (housing/, food, utility bills, transport etc for the maid), and is often more practical. It does not have to be about making the maid work long hours just because she lives in... Culturally too, i can see where devyani was coming from. Servants in India often live in the same premise, and it gives them a roof over their heads...

You mean like "servant quarters"? I am not sure how much of that is indentured labor and how much is pure magnanimity on the employer's part. Since there no surveys on that, I will shy away from generalizing. After all, one of us has to.

you also did not have any reasonable answer as to why devyani should not have filed a report when the maid went missing. Devyani could have gotten into more legal trouble if she had not...

What kind of legal trouble? It's not like they found Sangeeta's dead body buried in Devyani's backyard so I am not sure what exactly you came across that suggests that Devyani would be in legal trouble if Sangeeta leaves. Yes, leaves. "Went missing"? HAHAHAHA, even the cops laughed it off.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

to elaborate on the other point that you dont get, under the A-3 visa category that richards came in on, she was tied to devyani's visa status. If richards was found working elsewhere, devyani would have had legal liability to report that fact to Immigration. It's really a simple principle and it's amazing you dont get it. It's like when you sell your car. You have to take your license plates away or let DMV know... Employers are required to let Immigration know if there's a change in status... When they fire someone on Wall Street, the employer has to let the SEC know, else they open themselves to lawsuits from future employers. There are many other examples to help you understand. In this case, when richards left, her status had implicitly changed from A3. A smart lawyer could have gone after devyani if she had not filed a report...

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

There is no need to fret so much over this issue.

Taking your own example, if I need to know what procedures I should follow when selling my car to a 3rd party, I will go to dmv.org, look up the state regulations, download and complete the "notice of transfer and release of liability" form, and mail it to the appropriate address. If I don't do what the rulebook dictates, I will face the consequences.

You seem to know what the rulebook says when an A-3 employee leaves. So, dear Birdie, point me to the rulebook. if you don't have access to that rulebook, then dear Birdie, would you kindly admit that you are speculating?

BTW, nice change in stance - toned down from "absconding" to "missing" now?

What is this about anyway? A missing employee who "might be" working elsewhere, who if not caught, will put the employer in trouble OR an absconding worker, who ran away from the house after stealing a bunch of items of which we have no idea about? Looking at the history, what option do you think Devyani picked in these two?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

😆 No, you're kidding, arent you? I cant believe you dont get it by now. Of course, all this is speculation, albeit intelligent in my case. Common sense like the one i got beats the wild goose theories you've been putting out everytime.😆

your last question is highly entertaining but unfortunately irrelevant.😆 Irrespective of what it is, she had an obligation to report. Point is that bringing in an employee on one pretext (domestic help) and then have her working as something else can sure smack of trafficking. Someone can come along and say she's doing a scam along with the maid. That's how your Indian IT firms get into trouble. These things are so obvious that you dont need an instruction manual to figure out. Some things are do-it- yourself. Try it sometimes, it's liberating and it will set you free.😆

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

So you don't know what the employer of an A-3 employee should do when the employee quits. Thought as much.

Looks like some of your fake-resume-buddies told you that if you laugh and sneer your way through a debate, you will be automatically declared the winner. Trust me on this, they are wrong.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

<font color="#0000FF">So you don't know what the employer of an A-3 employee should do when the employee quits. Thought as much.

Looks like some of your fake-resume-buddies told you that if you laugh and sneer your way through a debate, you will be automatically declared the winner. Trust me on this, they are wrong.</font>

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

What should they do?

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

^^So then how do we assume what Devyani did was inappropriate?