OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote: You made up a bunch of stuff, from eating Vietnamese food

Photo from the menu that evening, laughing (crying) with my wife on the price difference:


Here's a question for you then... if a company hires an Indian company for some work, and that Indian company sends over some workers to perform it on US soil, are they being exploited because the Indian company is only paying them their Indian salary + expenses?

Salary + expenses is normal... companies doesn't suddenly change employee salaries if they send them to work in another state/country, they just cover an expense allowance. A good example would be US workers sent to work in Singapore for a few weeks, where the cost of living is dramatically higher... and so are the wages for the job being done. You don't get a salary increase, you get a per diem to cover living expenses.

COL Source:
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co ... =Singapore

You would need around 8,497.16S$ (6,667.06$) in Singapore to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 4,400.00$ in Los Angeles, CA

I didn't mean you made up the viet menu prices. I meant you made up an imaginary lifestyle for the Indians in order to excuse the almost billion dollar profit companies inexcusable racist behaviour.

Why were the American workers not ecstatic at getting low pay in Singapore? Were they paid a 1/5 of the Singapore minimum wage? And did you know that two wrongs don't make a right???

Your question about an Indian company - An Indian company can't send workers to America and only have them observe Indian law. Should they be allowed to discriminate against women/ gays and other minorities. Your argument is illogical. I can't, and wouldn't bring Bangladeshis to the UK, and pay them a dollar a day, a room and food, and expect them to be ecstatic. Surely everybody knows that is legally and morally wrong.

Satiated Parrot wrote:Are you Indian, UKJ?

So you think you would have to be Indian, to think that it's ok to exploit people who didn't know their rights? To have them work 122 hours like slaves, and give them a fraction of the legal minimum wage, and claim they should be ecstatic about the privilege of being in America? I think it's only two people who think it was ok, and I suspect you are both American. I am Scottish born and bred. I have never been to India, nor know any Indian people.

UKJ wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:Are you Indian, UKJ?

So you think you would have to be Indian, to think that it's ok to exploit people who didn't know their rights? To have them work 122 hours like slaves, and give them a fraction of the legal minimum wage, and claim they should be ecstatic about the privilege of being in America? I think it's only two people who think it was ok, and I suspect you are both American. I am Scottish born and bred. I have never been to India, nor know any Indian people.

No. I was curious, as you seem to be defending them so gallantly. Don't put words in my mouth.

Satiated Parrot wrote:

UKJ wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:Are you Indian, UKJ?

So you think you would have to be Indian, to think that it's ok to exploit people who didn't know their rights? To have them work 122 hours like slaves, and give them a fraction of the legal minimum wage, and claim they should be ecstatic about the privilege of being in America? I think it's only two people who think it was ok, and I suspect you are both American. I am Scottish born and bred. I have never been to India, nor know any Indian people.

No. I was curious, as you seem to be defending them so gallantly. Don't put words in my mouth.

I thought I was defending human decency, rather than Indians. I would have said the same, no matter what nationality or countries were involved.

You seem obsessed with the matter. I'm trying to figure out why.

UKJ wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote: You made up a bunch of stuff, from eating Vietnamese food

Photo from the menu that evening, laughing (crying) with my wife on the price difference:


Here's a question for you then... if a company hires an Indian company for some work, and that Indian company sends over some workers to perform it on US soil, are they being exploited because the Indian company is only paying them their Indian salary + expenses?

Salary + expenses is normal... companies doesn't suddenly change employee salaries if they send them to work in another state/country, they just cover an expense allowance. A good example would be US workers sent to work in Singapore for a few weeks, where the cost of living is dramatically higher... and so are the wages for the job being done. You don't get a salary increase, you get a per diem to cover living expenses.

COL Source:
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co ... =Singapore

You would need around 8,497.16S$ (6,667.06$) in Singapore to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 4,400.00$ in Los Angeles, CA

I didn't mean you made up the viet menu prices. I meant you made up an imaginary lifestyle for the Indians in order to excuse the almost billion dollar profit companies inexcusable racist behaviour.

Why were the American workers not ecstatic at getting low pay in Singapore? Were they paid a 1/5 of the Singapore minimum wage? And did you know that two wrongs don't make a right???

Your question about an Indian company - An Indian company can't send workers to America and only have them observe Indian law. Should they be allowed to discriminate against women/ gays and other minorities. Your argument is illogical. I can't, and wouldn't bring Bangladeshis to the UK, and pay them a dollar a day, a room and food, and expect them to be ecstatic. Surely everybody knows that is legally and morally wrong.

I wasn't making up a lifestyle... I was giving an example of what living even close to the same quality of life they were given by the company would have cost them. And it's far from racist... if anything it's classist, knowing that any people from a lower class of economy will work within that economy.

Most American workers I've talked to are always still pretty stoked to go work in Singapore for a few weeks, even on less than Singapore employees are earning... so long as expenses are covered. It's still more than their standard wage at that point... because it's their wage + their living expenses.

The question about the Indian company IS logical, as only employees of US companies are protected by US labor laws... the US can't force a foreign company to do jack shit. Here's a good example: There is a Chinese company I was recently working with who installs large water park installations... shit like wave pools/etc. They send over their own laborers for the installation. If they were doing this in the US, there's nothing the US Gov't could do to make them pay US minimum wage... these laborers are employees of a Chinese company, which is not subject to US labor law. Just like when we American expats live in Cambodia working remotely for US companies, those companies are not subject to Cambodian labor laws... as they have not offices in Cambodia to be beholden to the Gov't there.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of salary vs hourly wages, the way you keep harping on that number. It's quite possible the workers didn't work 122 hours, but billed that many. Happens all the time, often out of just slapping some number into your nuisance time system, and because it's salary workers (so doesn't cost any more) the companies don't focus heavily on enforcing it. Salary workers are also known as "exempt" status. A good example of this, with expense compensation, would be the US military. An E-1 rank soldier in basic training earns $1417/month, but may "work" up to 20 hours on most days and 7 days a week. That comes down to close to what these Indians are being paid... are these US citizens being exploited? How could it possibly be legal to be paying them less than "minimum wage"!? Answer: Because it's calculated with non-wage benefits included.

Under 29 C.F.R. §531.27, “in determining whether he has met the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act, the employer may credit himself with the reasonable cost to himself of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by him to his employees when the cost of such board, lodging, or other facilities is not excluded from wages paid to such employees under the term of a bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employees.”

In such circumstances, the reasonable cost or the fair value of the goods or of furnishing the facilities may be added to the employee’s cash wages before determining the regular rate of pay.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECF ... .21.3.92.3

Satiated Parrot wrote:You seem obsessed with the matter. I'm trying to figure out why.

You have made as many posts as me! The company has accepted it was wrong and paid the back wages and a fine. Only you and OD think their behaviour was ok.
It moved on from the matter, to your condescending attitude. Here's some of your bizarre posts, which you think defend the exploitation of foreign workers.

Satiated Parrot wrote:The economy is doing better than it has done for the past 50 years, but let's face it, it'll be another 50 years before India is anything other than a third world mess. I don't mean all this in a condescending way, just stating facts.

Satiated Parrot wrote:Ever been to India? Bar a handful, being in the office for 122 means about 25 hours of actual work time.

Satiated Parrot wrote: Anyone would be greatful for some work experience in the States, no matter which country they're from. It'd look great on the resume.

Satiated Parrot wrote: Oh please. Many Indians wouldn't want to move to the US; they're the few very rich ones. Most, however, would jump at the chance.

OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

UKJ wrote: You made up a bunch of stuff, from eating Vietnamese food

Photo from the menu that evening, laughing (crying) with my wife on the price difference:


Here's a question for you then... if a company hires an Indian company for some work, and that Indian company sends over some workers to perform it on US soil, are they being exploited because the Indian company is only paying them their Indian salary + expenses?

Salary + expenses is normal... companies doesn't suddenly change employee salaries if they send them to work in another state/country, they just cover an expense allowance. A good example would be US workers sent to work in Singapore for a few weeks, where the cost of living is dramatically higher... and so are the wages for the job being done. You don't get a salary increase, you get a per diem to cover living expenses.

COL Source:
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co ... =Singapore

You would need around 8,497.16S$ (6,667.06$) in Singapore to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 4,400.00$ in Los Angeles, CA

I didn't mean you made up the viet menu prices. I meant you made up an imaginary lifestyle for the Indians in order to excuse the almost billion dollar profit companies inexcusable racist behaviour.

Why were the American workers not ecstatic at getting low pay in Singapore? Were they paid a 1/5 of the Singapore minimum wage? And did you know that two wrongs don't make a right???

Your question about an Indian company - An Indian company can't send workers to America and only have them observe Indian law. Should they be allowed to discriminate against women/ gays and other minorities. Your argument is illogical. I can't, and wouldn't bring Bangladeshis to the UK, and pay them a dollar a day, a room and food, and expect them to be ecstatic. Surely everybody knows that is legally and morally wrong.

I wasn't making up a lifestyle... I was giving an example of what living even close to the same quality of life they were given by the company would have cost them. And it's far from racist... if anything it's classist, knowing that any people from a lower class of economy will work within that economy.

Most American workers I've talked to are always still pretty stoked to go work in Singapore for a few weeks, even on less than Singapore employees are earning... so long as expenses are covered. It's still more than their standard wage at that point... because it's their wage + their living expenses.

The question about the Indian company IS logical, as only employees of US companies are protected by US labor laws... the US can't force a foreign company to do jack shit. Here's a good example: There is a Chinese company I was recently working with who installs large water park installations... shit like wave pools/etc. They send over their own laborers for the installation. If they were doing this in the US, there's nothing the US Gov't could do to make them pay US minimum wage... these laborers are employees of a Chinese company, which is not subject to US labor law. Just like when we American expats live in Cambodia working remotely for US companies, those companies are not subject to Cambodian labor laws... as they have not offices in Cambodia to be beholden to the Gov't there.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of salary vs hourly wages, the way you keep harping on that number. It's quite possible the workers didn't work 122 hours, but billed that many. Happens all the time, often out of just slapping some number into your nuisance time system, and because it's salary workers (so doesn't cost any more) the companies don't focus heavily on enforcing it. Salary workers are also known as "exempt" status. A good example of this, with expense compensation, would be the US military. An E-1 rank soldier in basic training earns $1417/month, but may "work" up to 20 hours on most days and 7 days a week. That comes down to close to what these Indians are being paid... are these US citizens being exploited? How could it possibly be legal to be paying them less than "minimum wage"!? Answer: Because it's calculated with non-wage benefits included.

Under 29 C.F.R. §531.27, “in determining whether he has met the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act, the employer may credit himself with the reasonable cost to himself of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by him to his employees when the cost of such board, lodging, or other facilities is not excluded from wages paid to such employees under the term of a bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employees.”

In such circumstances, the reasonable cost or the fair value of the goods or of furnishing the facilities may be added to the employee’s cash wages before determining the regular rate of pay.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECF ... .21.3.92.3

Your example is irrelevant, as the Indians were working for an American company, in America.

The lifestyle you " made up" didn't sound plausible, and wasn't an excuse.

Hourly rate - Well, the court and the company accept they didn't pay the correct hourly rate and had to make it up and add overtime. So you are arguing against a court decision. You and SP are very much on your own in the denial of any wrongdoing. But even if the law wasn't against you, I find it disappointing you don't find their treatment morally reprehensible.

UKJ wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:You seem obsessed with the matter. I'm trying to figure out why.

You have made as many posts as me! The company has accepted it was wrong and paid the back wages and a fine. Only you and OD think their behaviour was ok.
It moved on from the matter, to your condescending attitude. Here's some of your bizarre posts, which you think defend the exploitation of foreign workers.

Satiated Parrot wrote:The economy is doing better than it has done for the past 50 years, but let's face it, it'll be another 50 years before India is anything other than a third world mess. I don't mean all this in a condescending way, just stating facts.

Satiated Parrot wrote:Ever been to India? Bar a handful, being in the office for 122 means about 25 hours of actual work time.

Satiated Parrot wrote: Anyone would be greatful for some work experience in the States, no matter which country they're from. It'd look great on the resume.

Satiated Parrot wrote: Oh please. Many Indians wouldn't want to move to the US; they're the few very rich ones. Most, however, would jump at the chance.

I wasn't defending the exploitation of anyone. I was simply pointing out that work experience in America is a big opportunity for them, and to pretend that it isn't because Indians don't want to leave their extended families is utter nonsense given the hundreds of thousands who work overseas alone.

If you want to talk about exploitation, try being a professional in his grad year. I guarantee I was paid well below minimum wage. Did I complain? No.

Satiated Parrot wrote: I wasn't defending the exploitation of anyone. I was simply pointing out that work experience in America is a big opportunity for them, and to pretend that it isn't because Indians don't want to leave their extended families is utter nonsense given the hundreds of thousands who work overseas alone.

I guess you didn't graduate in any humanitarian subjects, or maths, as hundreds of thousands out of a population of 1.2 billion isn't everybody. Take two people from this thread as an example. OD - would stay in Cambo with his wife if he could. Me - could retire to Asia today, or work online/ teach English elsewhere, but I stay in the UK. Not everyone will work abroad at every opportunity.

Satiated Parrot wrote: If you want to talk about exploitation, try being a professional in his grad year. I guarantee I was paid well below minimum wage. Did I complain? No.

So we can't talk about exploitation, unless it's about poor old you?