Worked with one big Indian company here in Malaysia last time and I see intimidation as common means of dealing with employees. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work well here, since most of people have a lot of choices moving around.
I've been pushed to accept work that has a minimum wage in a different country, despite my experience and the fact I can't possibly survive with my family there. I've had my resume jacked up multiple times when they sent my resume to the client, up to the point that I had to deny I had never put certain things on my resume.
For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company. Except for the fact that the first year salary of said fresh grad are being paid in full by the Malaysian government (in exchange of hiring certain number of locals per year). Some of the trainings are subsidized by the government too.
Which explained how they can force employees to take a much less pay than what they are getting in other countries, where the cost of living is higher, because they can intimidate.
Malaysia job market is much smaller than India, and such tactic didn't bode well, since there are not much replacement to come by when people are quitting, and smaller market means once you had bad reputation, new hires slowed to trickle.
Now, I am not generalizing all Indian companies, there bad apples around the world, but I am just sharing my experience on how intimidation come about. I just find it disgusting that such practices are being practice somewhere in the world.
"For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company."
No, that is not ever reasonable anywhere in any situation. May be typical, but not reasonable.
Could you describe what rights are being violated and the framework in which the rights are couched? I certainly agree that the practice is wrong, but I was unaware of the existence of that degree of specificity in currently-accepted definitions of human rights. Is there a body of case law that is supposed to aid in the interpretation of questions like what exactly constitutes slavery?
The UHDR states that individuals should be free from discrimination, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean when applied universally.
I don't even know what a 'right' is in this context. Are we speaking in the same sense as they are defined in the US Constitution, that governments must respect the laws but private enterprises do not? Or is it meant in a stronger sense, that private enterprises must do so as well, or even individuals? If the latter, how are we supposed to interpret the prohibition against violating a person's free speech rights?
> Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Does this mean that we are now setting education policy across the whole Earth? How strong is this policy supposed to be? Does one class on human rights during secondary school satisfy the requirement?
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 23
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
•(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
•(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
•(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
And if you just want to limit to just to the US constitution the 13th amendment
The US government does the same thing to the American students they give "CyberCorps" scholarships to. They have an obligation to remain in government jobs for the same number of years that they received the scholarship for and if they want to leave early they have to repay the scholarship.
For private companies in the US, I've never encountered having to repay training expenses. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if there were obligations around getting a degree program paid for and that sort of thing; I've never been in that sort of situation.) However, I have seen a company go after relocation expenses from someone who was moved cross-country and, shortly thereafter, quit.
Sort of... But not the same, especially when the training is glorified or nonexistent in the case of the body shops. In the go ernment case, there's a formula to calculate balance owed which is for a recognized form of education that is marketable and tangible.
For an entry level government job the scholarship probably is equivalent to a year of salary. Point being this sort of service requirement for scholarship is pretty common and isn't some practice relegated to shady companies on the other side of the world.
Not really. If one drops out of a service academy or ROTC before the beginning of junior (3rd) year, one owes nothing. Also, the rules about this are spelled out in explicit detail, not just in the fine print in a caveat-emptor kind of way, but to one's face in a way that is impossible to misinterpret. I very highly doubt the same is true for people coming to the US on H1-B visas.
Charging people for company-specific training is exploitative. It's not a charitable act on the company's part; it's necessary to create, maintain, and grow a competent workforce. Also, training is often marketed as compensation, and companies can't have it two ways: it's either compensation or it's not, and if you market it as such then clawing back the "value" of training is as unethical as clawing back the cash you paid the employee for the time they were there.
I've had a few experiences interviewing South Asian guys on H1-B visas where they were trying to game the interview really hard and it was awkward at the time and I was angry after the fact that this person had made it past a phone screen. Reading what life is like for these guys, I'll have a little more empathy next time.
It strikes me as a debatable point, which is what I believe fadzlan is saying. The company gets particularly cheap labor, the fresh grad gets training and real experience they can put on their resume. Plenty of people in the US are willing to work for free (intern) to get the latter.
Working for free is completely different, because you're never in a trap where you owe the employer any repayment. I don't really see how you could claim these scenarios are the same at all.
These type of debt bond contracts are the foundation that has been used to legally justify modern slavery for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It's still the legal foundation of slavery in the many places where it's practiced today. Add to that, do you realize the extend to which it's still legally possible to enforce debt repayment in many countries? "Debt" is an extremely bad condition to be in, that can legally allow all kinds of terrible things to happen to you, if you're in certain countries.
Employees should absolutely never be put into the situation where they owe monetary repayment to an employer, in any conditions, except for if the employees break some kind of universal criminal law.
Debt bond in a country where that's not dischargeable or otherwise evadable is indeed such a legal foundation. From the way fadzlan portrayed Malaysia I didn't get the impression it was so dire there.
All I'm saying is that it's a debatable point, to which I'll add the caveat of your slavery point. Per the article some US courts agree, even the win described at the end of it meant the case wasn't struck down as a matter of law, a jury was required for fact finding.
Having worked with an brilliant exploited H-1B holder before at Lucent, earning 60% what I was for a job he was arguably as qualified for, you can guess on which side of the debate I'm on.
> "For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company."
Even by Malaysian standards this is just ridiculous. The tech scene in Malaysia is growing - people really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.
This is de rigor in India. Keep a job for less than a year, you pay the company. Its the most bizarre thing I've heard. Sure, many companies here will ask for their signing bonus back if you quit early into this job, but this is literally garnishing one's wages.
I've heard the same. However I see many companies making employees signing bonds openly, including big ones such as Infosys, Accenture. Is there some loophole in law?
There is no legal loophole. The lawsuits in India (in majority of the cases) carry on for eternity and that's the endemic characteristic which companies exploit. That said, you yourself can try to use a legal threat as a means to turn the tides in your favor. In my personal experience, it has worked. I have made a detailed comment on the relevant laws [0].
I wouldn't prefer the legal gun option. You can show salary slips from your previous employer to show your proof of employment to your prospective employer(s) should you ever land in a bond-like situation and want to quit. Most prospective employers have no problem accepting that as a proof of employment in the previous firm. The issues arise when your "bonded" employer asks to deposit money in escrow accounts, educational certificates etc. with them. However, these are very good indicator(s) to avoid such firms. Keep in mind, that by law - it is illegal to withhold such certificates, money etc. to the vulnerability of the employee [0]. The MD of the company and the immediate manager can go to prison or have to pay fine or both for this stunt.
Thanks for reply. Can you shed some light on notice period policy by companies? Many companies have reasonable period like 2 weeks to a month, however some ask for like 2-3 months.
Notice period policies is a mutual decision between the employee and the employer, the law does not put in any limitations. Of course, the notice period should be reasonable and should not violate basic civil rights. Therefore, the exact duration is open to interpretation.
Practically, 3 months would not seem unreasonable.
Bonded labor, as some call it, is still quite alive in many/most countries. Sad that every single employee and manager doesn't refuse to continue the practice. I can see what's making it difficult to fight it in unison in some places.
It is illegal in India too. However, companies use different coercive tactics (like TCS in the article) to ensure pay up. The letter of law states that it is illegal.
Eh, happens even to the best companies in US. Microsoft employment agreement stipulates that if you quit earlier than one year, you have to pay back all relocation expenses (visas, temporary housing, etc). Easily tens of thousands of dollars.
The end result is that you are on the hook for $10k+ if you decide to quit Microsoft - very similar to the amount charged by Indian outsourcing companies in the article. There are legitimate expenses beyond visa fees that companies incur to import foreign worker and any company will want to be compensated for them if employee quit early.
I have been in that situation and it was made crystal clear by the documents that I was signing that I was on the hook for a big chunk o' cash (signing bonus + relocation costs to move me halfway across the country) if I decided to leave before a year was up. That's a situation I willingly entered into, having many alternate choices. This wasn't something that was just thrust on me the day I showed up at the new job; I knew about it before I turned in my notice at the old one.
Many (most?) of the people in this situation don't have that luxury of choice and freedom.
it sounds to me that the relocation money never passes through the employee's hands - microsoft probably deals with relocation vendors directly (most likely have long-standing relationships), and it is not part of your compensation. it's an expense that you may or may not choose to incur, with stipulations.
How do they get them to pay a years worth of salary if they quit? I doubt this ever happens. Though I don't doubt fresh grads believing them and sticking it out.
Typically the employee's father (or some similarly close relative) will sign a legal agreement with the employer promising to pay back the employee's wages if the employee disappears. (Legally I believe this is similar to a guarantor for a bank loan.)
Though this probably won't stand up in court, most employees wouldn't risk putting their own father through the trouble of finding out.
Ha, this isn't even as severe as what goes on. Some companies ask to pay upto 75% of their annual salary as a security deposit (refundable on quitting with some T&C).
I've been pushed to accept work that has a minimum wage in a different country, despite my experience and the fact I can't possibly survive with my family there. I've had my resume jacked up multiple times when they sent my resume to the client, up to the point that I had to deny I had never put certain things on my resume.
For fresh grad though, if they quit earlier than 18 months, they have to pay almost a year of their salary, which seems reasonable when there are trainings when they joined the company. Except for the fact that the first year salary of said fresh grad are being paid in full by the Malaysian government (in exchange of hiring certain number of locals per year). Some of the trainings are subsidized by the government too.
Which explained how they can force employees to take a much less pay than what they are getting in other countries, where the cost of living is higher, because they can intimidate.
Malaysia job market is much smaller than India, and such tactic didn't bode well, since there are not much replacement to come by when people are quitting, and smaller market means once you had bad reputation, new hires slowed to trickle.
Now, I am not generalizing all Indian companies, there bad apples around the world, but I am just sharing my experience on how intimidation come about. I just find it disgusting that such practices are being practice somewhere in the world.