Saturday, August 27, 2016
Refugees: Europe's new forced labour?
A few weeks ago, our housemate, Ahmed (names changed to protect identity), came home excited. "I am going to get payed!"
He had been volunteering at a chain of charitable flea markets for months (let's pretend it's called "FADI"), putting in between 4-8 hours a day, carrying heavy furniture donations in their warehouse. When his family started facing financial difficulties back in Iraq (his family decided to move away from a dangerous area, shortly after which, a bomb went off near their home, and so they were unable to sell their house), he decided to ask DAFI whether they would actually hire him.
A verbal contract was made for ONE week of work. I'd never seen Ahmed quite as happy as when he worked there that one week.
A couple weeks later, things got messy. "They cannot pay me," he said one evening. "I don't have a passport, so they cannot give me salary because I cannot open a bank account. Also, my social worker will cut all my money for the month if I get paid. So FADI told me it was volunteer work."
I was astounded, so I asked a few clarifying questions. Why can't they give you your salary in cash? Who said they can't? Why can't you just go buy something for the owed amount and give them the receipt instead? If you are legally allowed to work after 6 months with no passport, then surely that means there also has to be a way for you to get paid for it?
So DAFI had promised him work on the basis that he was legally allowed to. When pay day came around, and it was discovered that Ahmed had no bank account, they said he must open one. But he can not open one, because he has no passport, says immigration. DAFI says paying salary in cash is not legal. Perhaps we can pay the salary into 'Harry's' account instead, and you can have it at the next pay day?
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of the law as I understood after a little googling and reading the web pages of the occupational safety and health administration of Finland.
1. The employer cannot suggest a bank account into which to pay the salary, and furthermore, one's salary must be available on pay day.
"Wages must be paid into a bank account designated by the employee. Wages must be available to the employee on the due date. The employer is liable for the costs incurred through payment of wages."
2. Paying salary in cash is possible."Wages may be paid in cash only for compelling reasons, for instance if the employee does not have a bank account or the employer does not have the employee’s bank details. The employer must obtain a receipt signed by the employee or some other means of verifying payment if wages are paid in cash."
Ahmed blames immigration because they want to make it as difficult for refugees as possible, and says he is also partially to blame, because he should have known they cannot pay him. DAFI, according to him, is absolutely not to blame at all.
Again, perhaps I do not fully understand the law here, but I would imagine that the duty of care in this case is with the employer. Any employer seeking to make a contract with any person surely has to ensure that they are also able to pay the employee? Surely, it is not the duty of the employee to take care of those considerations? Ahmed says they called immigration. Immigration said he has no passport, so he cannot open a bank account. The social worker says salary must be paid into a bank account. My question is, why did they call immigration? Why should immigration know anything about the practicalities of salary payments? Why are they consulting a social worker? Surely a worker's union or the occupational safety and health administration is the right body to contact?
What am I missing here? The aforementioned web page seems fairly clear cut.
And if my understanding of EU rights is correct, foreign workers cannot legally be treated differently. It is a human rights issue, above all else. Allowing those kinds of double standards would encourage forced labour. And this whole episode smacks of forced labour, if you ask me. First he is promised a salary, then he is told it is not possible to pay it after all. Then they suggest he continues to work for them as a volunteer.
Ahmed says they will furnish his apartment for him if/when he gets his residence permit, so that's a bonus. Well, he's been there for almost a year now volunteering, and furnishing one small apartment with second hand furniture would be worth what... a month, max two, of wages? And that's assuming the furniture has some monetary value to the charitable organization. Which it doesn't, since they are donations, and the labour that's carrying it around is all "voluntary".
Somebody with some knowledge of the law, please do advise!
Labels: asylum seekers, Finland, forced labour, human rights, justice, labour, labour law, law, refugees
fon @ 1:05 AM link to post * *