Work in the US but under Conditions of a Developing Country

Viewed from afar, one might think that for a household employee from a developing country coming to the United States to work for a diplomat would provide a great professional and personal experience. For many, this is definitely true, but for others, the real outlook is much worse than imagined and their experience can become a real-life hell from which it is very difficult to escape. Behind the recent case of the Indian vice-consul in New York, who was thrown out of the U.S. after being accused of lying during the processing of a visa in order for her Indian domestic employee to live in the country and of paying lower than minimum wage, hides a profound and old problem about the violation of labor conditions for these workers.

The numbers are alarming. In the last decade, 21 judicial proceedings dealing with human trafficking have been registered against foreign diplomats or workers in international organizations in the U.S., according to data from the Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Care Center. The Center is a civil organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C., that legally assesses those foreign domestic workers. The cases go beyond not respecting minimum wage — which can follow a different judicial path from that for the treatment of people — and deal with accusations from not paying employees anything to making them work long hours, not giving them a bed or verbally or physically threatening them. In these 21 accounts, all of the victims are foreign women and the majority of those accused come from developing countries like Ecuador, Bolivia, the Philippines, Tanzania, Uganda, Qatar or Kuwait. Also from India. In fact, Vice-Consul Devayani Khobragade, whose detention a month ago infuriated New Delhi and let loose a thorny crisis with Washington, is the third Indian diplomat settled in New York who has been accused in recent years of exploiting domestic employees.

The civil entities predict that the real figures related to abuse are much higher because the majority of workers do not dare denounce their superiors out of fear of suffering reprisals. In fact, they live under a vulnerable situation and under maximum dependency, because their U.S. visas are completely linked to those of their employers. “If they leave their jobs, they lose their permission to live in the U.S., and they do not want to stay without papers for fear of being deported,” warned Martina E. Vandenberg, president and founder of the Pro Bono Legal Center, in a telephone conversation.* “It’s very difficult for them to denounce it, because they are isolated, live with their employers and many do not know English nor are they familiar with how the judicial system functions,” added Avaloy Lanning, director of Safe Horizon’s program against human trafficking. Safe Horizon managed the legal prosecution for Sangeeta Richard, the Indian vice-consul’s worker.*

Richard abandoned these fears and difficulties and had enough courage to ask for help in order to denounce the exploitation that she was suffering. Seven months after arriving in New York in November of 2012, she decided to run away from Khobragade’s house, tired of proving that the vice-consul did not pay the agreed amount. In July, Richard contacted Safe Horizon, who helped her begin the proceedings against the vice-consul. According to the indictment, in the visa form for her employee Khobragade said that she would pay a salary of $9.75 per hour — in accordance with American legislation — when in reality she paid 30,000 rupees monthly, which would be around $3.33 if one worked 40 hours a week. The victim, however, worked 100 hours per week, without days off, meaning that her salary was slightly more than $1 per hour. In India, minimum wage is $1.80 per day. As such, the standard salary per hour is definitively less than that in America. Additionally, the domestic employee’s passport was retained and her family in India was pressured so that she would retract the accusations. Now, since the vice-consul’s return to New Delhi, the judicial process has been paralyzed and everything indicates that it will remain so indefinitely. At the moment, U.S. authorities have given Richard a special residency visa given to victims of human trafficking, which does not have an expiration date.

The low salary, extra hours and retention of Richard’s passport break the law, made stricter in 2008, that protects foreign workers who arrive in the U.S. with diplomats. Activist Vandenberg revealed that, unfortunately, cases of violations regarding the labor conditions of the domestic workers of diplomats have always existed, but she stresses that the 2008 legislation was a true turning point with respect to these workers’ rights. “Now, every employee must have a contract that respects the American law in order to obtain a visa,” she emphasized.*

Additionally, since then the State Department has distributed notices to foreign representatives living in the U.S. that clearly state the rights of domestic workers, including the minimum wage that should be received depending on the city of residency and that only diplomats with a certain status who have demonstrated that they can pay their employees the minimum wage established in the United States [may bring their employees to the U.S.]. “The State Department regularly and proactively reminds diplomatic missions of U.S. requirements relating to the employment of domestic workers present in the U.S.,” affirmed an official spokesperson in a response via email.

The latest statistics from the American administration about this topic are from 2008, which is why it is not possible to calculate the impact of making the law stricter. Despite this, the figures were already significant: Between 2000 and 2008, a total of 42 diplomats stationed in the U.S. were accused of abusing the foreign employees that they had brought to the country. About a third of the accused came from Africa, while about 15 percent were from Asia and about 2.5 percent from Europe.

To the vulnerability that these workers suffer may be added another factor that further complicates the respect given to their rights: the enormous diplomatic protection of their employers. In the vice-consul’s case, according to Vandenberg, Khobragade enjoyed immunity during her work schedule Monday through Friday, leaving her private life outside. Despite this, she asked to be moved to the Indian delegation at the United Nations, where the protection is much more complete. After she was charged by the law, the U.S. agreed to this, but later requested that India take back said immunity in order to have the case brought to court. New Delhi rejected this request and Washington responded by complaining about the vice-consul’s departure from the country, which had taken place on Jan. 9.

The legal activist criticizes the fact that the departure of the Indian diplomat reflects habitual behavior and that the majority of the accused just leave the U.S. They are thus able to escape the judicial fence. This means, or rather reveals, a violation of international conventions about diplomatic immunity that establishes that the protection “is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing states.” As a result, countries should retract the immunity of their diplomats guilty of a crime. This occurred, for example, in 2012 with the Mauritanian ambassador in the U.S. His country lifted the complete immunity that he enjoyed after Washington asked that he be accused of paying his Filipino domestic worker less than minimum wage. The ambassador declared himself guilty and paid a compensation of about $30,000. Other diplomats from Taiwan and Italy also admitted guilt for similar cases in the last two years in the United States.

Now that the storm of the last couple of weeks has begun to die down, both Human Trafficking and Safe Horizon have lamented that the vice-consul of India has been left immune from the exploitation of the female domestic employee. However, the two organizations are confident that the political and media repercussions of the case send a “clear message” to other diplomats and that these repercussions will be a powerful trigger for obtaining a greater respect for the labor rights of these workers.

* Editor’s Note: These quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.