Akash had a salary problem in one job. He then found a new job. Eight months later, non-payment again. We learn of worse as the interview progresses.
MOM now says it is not their intent to give employers unfettered power over workers' movements. But why say this over social media? Why not simply correct badly drafted law?
Recently, journalists doing follow-up stories about Covid-19 have been reaching us with similar questions. For convenience, we will put our responses here.
The general community is "saved" from Covid-19 only because migrant workers are made to pay the price for us: severe confinement, never mind mental wellbeing and medical complications.
A short explainer about how corrupted the recruitment system has become for migrant workers and the two key measures needed to reform the eco-system.
Employer and insurer objected to the compensation award. The case went to a 'labour court' hearing, and then to the High Court, the issues becoming technical along the way.
$2,000 is cheap as far as recruiters' fees go, but just as easily lost. Razzak's story is unfortunately as common as dirty money in the migrant labour market.
The new law says "The employer must not allow, or cause to be allowed, the foreign employee ... to leave the dormitory ... and may grant or refuse consent..."
With what looks like a policy change, worker's access to the Employment Claims Tribunal now appears to be seriously impeded by costs and uncertainty of process.
We felt that the Employment Claims Tribunal erred in two major areas in its ruling over Ali Liakat's salary claim. Leave to appeal was sought, but denied.
