Workers Strike - Khaleej Times
Many larger enterprises in the UAE outsource their cleaning to cleaning services companies. Outsourcing per se is not a good or a bad thing, and generally the economic motivation for outsourcing are good whether in the UAE or elsewhere.
A not infrequent occurrence is firms who fail to pay their workers as promised. In a well functioning competitive market such firms would be punished by the market - workers would leave the firm for other firms and potential workers would know of the firms poor reputation for timely payment.
Neither of those conditions holds in the UAE. Firstly, ex pat workers - especially low wage workers - are subject to a ban from the country if they attempt to change jods. Second, there are ready replacement recruits ready to come to the UAE from poor labor supplying countries. These replacement workers are not well informed about their potential employer.
Thus, workers who are not being paid have little option but to be patient for a time and if payment continues to be delayed to go on strike. At this extreme point the government intervenes on behalf of the workers.
The government should consider allowing workers to change jobs. I am not sure why the government is reluctant to do so. No doubt, though, there is a greater sense of control over the 80% of the population who non-citizens if you can link them to a particular employer.
It would help if potential workers could know more about firms' reputations. But I do not see that there is a role for government here anymore than in there is a role for governments elsewhere to be effective in the role of supplier of product safety or quality information.
Many larger enterprises in the UAE outsource their cleaning to cleaning services companies. Outsourcing per se is not a good or a bad thing, and generally the economic motivation for outsourcing are good whether in the UAE or elsewhere.
A not infrequent occurrence is firms who fail to pay their workers as promised. In a well functioning competitive market such firms would be punished by the market - workers would leave the firm for other firms and potential workers would know of the firms poor reputation for timely payment.
Neither of those conditions holds in the UAE. Firstly, ex pat workers - especially low wage workers - are subject to a ban from the country if they attempt to change jods. Second, there are ready replacement recruits ready to come to the UAE from poor labor supplying countries. These replacement workers are not well informed about their potential employer.
Thus, workers who are not being paid have little option but to be patient for a time and if payment continues to be delayed to go on strike. At this extreme point the government intervenes on behalf of the workers.
The government should consider allowing workers to change jobs. I am not sure why the government is reluctant to do so. No doubt, though, there is a greater sense of control over the 80% of the population who non-citizens if you can link them to a particular employer.
It would help if potential workers could know more about firms' reputations. But I do not see that there is a role for government here anymore than in there is a role for governments elsewhere to be effective in the role of supplier of product safety or quality information.
posted by John B. Chilton at 4/03/2005 08:07:00 PM
1 Comments:
It has been explained to me that the 6-month ban is imposed by the Min of Labor. It's automatic for all workers with the exception of certain professionals (medical, construction, engineering, etc). Employees changing jobs within the various Free Zones do not get a ban.
The reason? Spite? The way the system is supposed to work is that employees are hired from overseas, and brought over here at the expense of the employer. So if the employee wants to leave the company then the employer loses money because he has to start the hiring process all over again.
That might be reasonable if a new employee left within the first year or two. But not after that - the employer will have had the benefit of a couple of years of service.
The ban thing is illogical anyway - it still applies in the case of 'local hires', where the employer has incurred no expense in bringing the worker here. And it applies no matter what your length of service is.
I think the whole idea behind it is that a company hires a worker to do a job. When the job comes to an end, through resignation, retirement or dismissal (or the end of a fixed-term contract), then the worker is supposed to go back to where he/she came from. Simple, no? No.
Because the system treats the worker as a chattel, and does not recognise any human rights that the worker may have.
And that attitude applies to all levels of the working scale, and all nationalities.
Post a Comment
<< Home