Minister Nahas’ “revolutionary” declarations came during a conference organized by Insan Association at La Sagesse University in Beirut on “Empowerment and Social Inclusion of Migrant Domestic Workers in Lebanon”, while sitting in between the Spanish Ambassador to Lebanon and the Dean of the Faculty of Law in La Sagesse. This is a major shift in policy with previous ministers of labor and came as a surprise to all conference participants.

Minister Nahas explained “so-called system of the sponsorship or guarantor (kafala) does not exist in Lebanese law.” He clarified that the term was imported from Arab countries where the practice is common, and brought into practice in Lebanon by the Lebanese General Security.

Today, Nahas reiterated via his Twitter account his refusal of a bill specific to foreign domestic workers. “Any labor law that takes into account the nationality of the worker is tantamount to racial discrimination,” he wrote in Arabic.

Earlier in 2011, UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Slavery, Ms. Gulnara Shahinian, refrained from suggesting to abolish the sponsorship system in Lebanon because, as Ms. Shahinian has said, she did not have time to explore the alternatives to the sponsorship system, and she did not view labor laws as a viable alternative. Equally, minister Nahas is going against the current global legislative trend which separates domestic work from normal labor as embodied in the recent work towards a Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers.

Minister Nahas’ overarching policy in the ministry of labor is to favor Lebanese over foreign workers. This has recently led to a significantly higher rate of denial of work permits to foreigners requested by Lebanese employers. In the words of minister Nahas, “we cannot keep exporting our youth and importing foreign workers”.

The kafala or sponsorship system in the Gulf should be abolished, this is an absolute prerequisite for the full personhood and humanization of domestic workers. The Philippine government’s new standards for overseas domestic workers and tentative bans on 41 non-compliant host countries are praiseworthy but far from promising–it is highly doubtful that this cosmetically laudable “concrete plan” will make it far off of the pages of the government’s issuance.

The Philippines is a toothless government with no political clout. What leverage does a country that has sold every national possession from citizens to soil and depends on the continued internationally homelessness of its population to stay afloat financially? In the region, the Philippines’ only competition in terms of development is Burma. The country’s former colonial master, the United States, owns the Philippine military. Without the remittances from migrant workers, which now account for 11% of the GDP, the Philippine economy would crumble. Remittances raise foreign exchange reserves and allow for private consumption, which represents more than three-quarters of the country’s GDP.

Let’s put the news in perspective: domestic workers working within the Philippines do not receive benefits that are now being demanded by the Philippines from host countries although, contrary to popular belief, there exists specific legislation outlining the rights of kasambahay (the local term for household laborers which has a tellingly feudal etymology). The minimum wage for domestic workers, as stipulated by the Philippine Labor Code, is Php 800 (less than $19) per month. The Department of Labor and Employment plans to raise the compensation for domestic workers to Php 1,500 through a new bill is in the works; however, according to the same government agency, the cost of living PER DAY in urban areas for a family of four exceeds Php 800. Due to the absence of reproductive health legislation, most Filipino women live in fear of pregnancy and the average family size in the Philippines is between five and six members. Half of all Filipino families live in cities because livelihood opportunities in rural regions are scarce.

Today the Philippine government announced that it has blacklisted 41 countries that do not have bilateral agreements with the Philippines or domestic legislation that protect the labor rights of migrant workers and has already nullified several murky contracts for workers slated to exit the country. Before a round of applause, what is the Philippine government doing to provide adequate jobs or alternatives here for the desperate Filipinas whose last resort (risky, underpaid labor in the Middle East or elsewhere) has been effectively squashed?

By the numbers, almost all domestic workers are women who cannot find work in their own countries. How can a government whose own Senate President upholds the patriarchal notion that only men are fit for the public sphere and work outside of the home, claim to stand for the development of women as a productive force? If employment for women is not fully re/addressed on the home front, than any attempt to ameliorate the situation of Filipinas will be ineffectual and cosmetic.

Like a clogged roadway, economic refugees fighting for basic survival and those who exploit them, will find alternative routes to maintain a cash flow. As a result of the stoppage of workers, conditions may likely get worse for those already employed within the UAE.

The Philippine government’s ruling sounds hopeful and is technically “progress” but in reality is a vacuous demand and will remain unheeded unless and until UAE is externally strong-armed or internally motivated to adopt the guidelines for domestic workers.

Changes include the distribution of manuals to incoming workers on rights and responsibilities, trained staff on hand to ‘greet’ incoming workers and better rooms in the  immigration areas of the airport. These will be “human spaces now”, according to Dina Hadad, project manager at Caritas Migrant Center.

It is no exaggeration to say that the previous rooms were nothing close to spaces where humans should sit or wait for anything or anyone. Entering Beirut’s airport, a traveler would observe how migrant women are flocked in one corner, passports taken away and they are only allowed to pass once all other passengers go. After this,  they are all escorted to a room run by the general security which is the “maids room”. The conditions are inhumane and undignified. Each woman must wait here until her sponsor arrives to and take her to the house,  for anything from 4 hours to 14.

Read the DailyStar full article for details.

The article spoke of the story of Malagasy Abeline Baholiarisoa who spent 15 traumatic years of slave-like work under the Lebanese sponsorship system until she was able to go back home with 84 other women after her government chartered a plane to evacuate then early this year.

Abeline refers to her life in Lebanon as “a living hell” and described the eating and sleeping conditions and how they (in reference to herself and the other maid enslaved with her in the same house) did not even find the time to clean themselves.

Abeline, who agreed to come to Lebanon on the premises that (as the contract she signed dictated) she will be working as a nurse for a limited number of hours/day and for 800$/month for a 3 year contract found herself (like many others) instead working as a “maid” for 24 hours/ day and for less than 160/month. She used to pay her employer for the bits and pieces of food she ate.

The article also moved on to tackle “suicide” patterns and the constantly uninvestigated death cases. It then mentions stories of women who returned in coffins to Madagascar with missing organs. This was a very important eye opening report. If serious and tangible action on the ground is not going to be taken by government and people alike after this, I am not quite optimistic that any other time will inspire them to. If this does not move people enough, nothing else will.

When will Abelinea and other stop falling in those well-organized traps and when will we work on exposing the mafias behind this?

Between two to eight south-Asian migrant workers have been killed in the weeks of protests in Bahrain, according to media reports. The brutal repression of the Bahraini peaceful protests was carried out by the Bahraini riot police, which is made up of mostly Sunni Muslims from south-Asian countries. The Shia of Bahrain, on the other hand, are barred from employment in the security forces, as they are seen as not loyal enough to the Al Khalifa regime. One of the grievances of the mostly-Shia protesters in Bahrain is the naturalization of foreign Sunnis, a policy intended to skew the demographic balance against the Shia majority. The xenophobic attacks on innocent migrant workers, which were condemned by opposition figures and NGOs, were also a result of government policy to force migrants to protest on behalf of the regime.

The sudden concern about migrant rights manifested not only in criticism of the opposition for their supposed lack of care of migrants. In order to bolster the credibility of this sudden interest in the welfare of the majority of Bahrain’s inhabitants, the Foreign Minister Khaled Al Khalifa paid visits to expatriate clubs and embassies, Bahraini TV began broadcasting news bulletins in languages spoken by migrants in Bahrain, and expats were even invited to the National Dialog.

While the regime publicly expresses its concern about rights of migrant workers, it has quietly re-instated the Sponsorship (kafala) system in Bahrain. Law 15/2011 that was issued by King Hamad Al Khalifa this month prevents migrant workers from leaving their employer within the first year of employment (amendment of Article 25 of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority [LMRA] Law). Previously, amendments to the LMRA law in April of 2009 were hailed worldwide as progress, and “axing” of Bahrain’s Sponsorship law (the first country to do so in the Gulf). In effect, the Sponsorship system was never abolished – the change was largely symbolic – with the LMRA becoming the official sponsor of migrants. However, the April 2009 decision did include a significant positive element – it now allowed employees to leave their employer without the employer’s consent. This positive decision has now been reversed by the Law issued this month.

On top of the un-official reinstatement of the Sponsorship system, workers have been handed down unfair rulings in court. 128 Indian workers who were promised salaries of BD 100 ($270) per month stopped working after they were instead given only BD 45 ($120) and were unable to survive on such a salary. They’ve been stranded in Bahrain for five years because when the workers attempted to leave the country they were informed that absconding charges were brought against them. Their employer, the Abdulla Nass Contracting Company, demanded the underpaid workers compensate the Company, and a Bahraini court ruled in the favor of the employer. Each of the workers was ordered to pay between BD 400 ($1,100) and BD 600 ($1,600) for breaching their contracts. The workers are of course unable to pay such sums, and are forced to stay in Bahrain. It was announced today that their case has been postponed for four more months, as the workers struggle to survive in Bahrain, living on borrowed money from friends.

Last week, when a group of 300 Asian construction workers went on strike demanding an increase in their meager salaries, 40 of them were fired after their management declared that the strike in “illegal”. When the workers turned to the Labor Ministry, the Ministry backed the employer and told the workers that they’re forbidden to ask for salary increases. Five days after the strike began, the workers returned to work with no salary increases. Bahrain’s labor laws permit strikes but significantly restricts workers ability to practice this right.

The Bahraini regime clearly doesn’t practice what it preaches to the opposition. All the recent steps taken by the Bahraini regime indicate that it is much more interested in protecting the powerful employers and not the weak migrant workers.

Al-Afasy also said that Kuwait opposes to two important points, one regarding specifying working hours for house maids and the other regarding respecting the maids’ freedom to have off days outside their sponsors’ houses. Al-Afasy says Kuwait and the GCC countries are “a special case” since the majority of maids are women and of course, he says, a maid going to a place unknown for her sponsor, does not suit the habits and traditions of Kuwait and its public ethics.

Such arguments about preserving tradition and modesty of maids have been used throughout the region (not just in the GCC, for example in Lebanon as well) to restrict the domestic workers’ freedom of movement, which is a basic human right.

The maid, a mother of-one, has attempted to resign at the beginning of 2011, giving her employers a one-month notice. However, her employers refused to let her leave after she has worked for them for three years, during which she was mentally abused and forced to work for 16 hours per day, seven days per week. After her employers wouldn’t let her quit, the maid escaped their home last month and fled to the Philippines Overseas Labour Off­­ice. Her employers responded by declaring her as an absconder at the Dubai Nat­uralisation and Resid­ency Depart­ment.

Yesterday, the 42-year-old woman was arrested and taken to the Dubai immigration prison and is set to be deported. Speaking to 7 Days she said “I tried to do everything the right way – I asked in writing to leave my employers after three years and they would not allow it. I had no choice. All I want to do is work hard for a good family. Now I have to go back with nothing. I can’t stand to tell my family in the Philippines, they rely on me for financial support.”

Foreign labor is regulated in the UAE under the Sponsorship (kafala) system, which ties the legal status of the migrant workers to their employer, making it illegal to leave their sponsors without the consent of the sponsor. Sponsors, however, are free to fire (and thus cause the deportation of) their workers whenever they please. Even in cases of abuse, if the worker leaves his sponsor without permission, he loses his legal status. The absconding charges result in a visa ban, meaning the worker will be forbidden from entering in the UAE again.

The campaign will put pressure on governments in the region to  end the sponsorship or ‘kafala’ system and to give workers the right to form trade unions.

The kafala system ties workers’ permission to live and work in their host country to the permission of their sponsor, and forbids them to seek alternative employment. Workers who strike or complain about poor working conditions and abuse risk losing not only their jobs but their permission to remain in the country.

Anti-Slavery will also work to raise awareness of the problem of corrupt recruitment brokers, who charge migrant workers vast sums of money to be brought to the Gulf to work in menial jobs.

Full press release  here

Citing local news report, Migrante-UAE Secretary General Nhel Morona, said the new regulation allowing a worker to work to another employer provided he successfully finished his employment contract with the first employer will take effect in January next year.

Under the ‘sponsor’ system, the hired expatriate worker could not easily transfer from one employer to another. He is bound to finish his or her contract after which he or she may work on an extended contract basis or may opt to resign and exit. Thus, an expatriate worker needs to get the consent of his sponsor before leaving the country.

The ‘sponsor’ system is widely enforced in the Arab states in the Middle East, until some of the Gulf Cooperating Council (GCC) member-countries entertain the abolition of ‘sponsor’ system. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar along with the UAE govt. has been seriously considering to ease its implementation, if not, fully abolish the system.

“We welcome the move by the UAE govt. when it eases its ‘sponsor’ rule as it would give leeway and freedom to expatriate workers in terms of travel and the opportunity to change and look for a better job within the UAE,” Morona added.

The sponsorship system serves as the legal basis for one’s residency and employment in Arab states in the Middle East.

Migrant workers cannot enter, work, change jobs or leave the country until they have permission from their sponsor, usually a GCC citizen, company or any branch of the government.

“The sponsorship system requires that an expatriate can work only for the sponsor and is entirely dependent on the contract in order to remain in the country,” John Leonard Monteron, Migrante-Middle East coordinator, explained.

Monterona added that usually laborer’s employer is the one who issues the visa invitation letter which requires the employee to work only for the original employer, who is also called the employee’s ‘sponsor’.

“In essence and in practice, sponsorship system is but an indentured servitude; a person under sponsorship simply called asbonded laborer who is under contract of the employer in exchange for an extension to the period of indenture, which could thereby continue indefinitely,” Monterona said.

The two OFW leaders both said that in the very nature of the prevailing system of sponsorship as practiced in the Gulf States, migrant workers as indentured servants were subject to abuses at the hands of their employers in the homes or fields in which they worked.

Migrante-Middle East is urging other mid-east governments, hosting the about 1.8-M OFWs in the entire Middle East, to follow suit taken by the UAE govt. when it will ease the ‘sponsor’ system starting January 2011. # # #

Written by:

John Leonard Monterona

Migrante-Middle East regional coordinator