The impression I get, from this and various other things, is that there isn't one set of consistent laws here. There are instead a whole bunch of sometimes contradictory policies, which are enforced or not according to the whim of whoever happens to be behind the desk at the moment.
ngourlay's comment that he expects to be treated better than a Nepali labourer should not be interpreted as racism in this context, or not ngourlay's racism anyway. He was just acknowledging what we all know already, that he usually is treated better than a Nepali labourer. Not that he should be, he just is. Consider, for example, that you have to be making QR 4,800 to be allowed to sponsor your spouse to come here at all. How many of those low-paid Nepali workers are making that much? The fact that ngourlay's wife was able to sponsor him at all is an example of the preferential treatment that ngourlay already receives.
I'm not proposing that, in the interest of "fairness" everyone be treated like a low-paid worker and denied the company of their families while working here, or denied the freedom to travel. I'd rather have everyone treated well, and the way to ensure that is to enable people to leave when they are treated poorly. If an employer can't offer an employee enough benefits to entice them to stay, then that employee should be allowed to leave. If enough employees leave to inconvenience the employer, then that employer will learn that he has to do something to improve employee benefits. Preventing people from leaving a job where they're being mistreated is simply slavery.
Other countries don't need this exit visa system this to keep their workers. What is so special about Qatar that they fear that their workers will run away if given a chance?
The impression I get, from this and various other things, is that there isn't one set of consistent laws here. There are instead a whole bunch of sometimes contradictory policies, which are enforced or not according to the whim of whoever happens to be behind the desk at the moment.
ngourlay's comment that he expects to be treated better than a Nepali labourer should not be interpreted as racism in this context, or not ngourlay's racism anyway. He was just acknowledging what we all know already, that he usually is treated better than a Nepali labourer. Not that he should be, he just is. Consider, for example, that you have to be making QR 4,800 to be allowed to sponsor your spouse to come here at all. How many of those low-paid Nepali workers are making that much? The fact that ngourlay's wife was able to sponsor him at all is an example of the preferential treatment that ngourlay already receives.
I'm not proposing that, in the interest of "fairness" everyone be treated like a low-paid worker and denied the company of their families while working here, or denied the freedom to travel. I'd rather have everyone treated well, and the way to ensure that is to enable people to leave when they are treated poorly. If an employer can't offer an employee enough benefits to entice them to stay, then that employee should be allowed to leave. If enough employees leave to inconvenience the employer, then that employer will learn that he has to do something to improve employee benefits. Preventing people from leaving a job where they're being mistreated is simply slavery.
Other countries don't need this exit visa system this to keep their workers. What is so special about Qatar that they fear that their workers will run away if given a chance?
www.melissatheloud.com