Exploitative Amazon

 More than two generations of Nepalis have spent their sweat and blood to help boost the economy of labour destinations in the Gulf, doing what is colloquially called a “3D” job: Dirty, difficult and dangerous.

                                               photo: google image

In an ideal situation, the contribution of the previous generations should have helped improve the working conditions for the new ones in those destinations. By the same token, the situation of the Nepalis themselves should have improved significantly. But things seem to remain where they were decades ago, the only difference being that the exodus of Nepalis is intensifying.

A recent report by Amnesty International has exposed how Nepalis continue to be victims of exploitative working culture in the labour destinations and apathy of the Nepali state. The report has said Nepali contract workers were cheated of their earnings and made to live in subhuman conditions while working in the warehouses of a multinational giant, Amazon, in Saudi Arabia.

The exploitative nature of companies in several Gulf countries is well-known among Nepalis, but what is shocking this time is the revelation that a multinational tech giant was complicit in the exploitation of its workers.

The cycle of exploitation seems to have started at home, when the workers were handed a contract other than the one promised, right before taking the flight, when they had no option but to sign it. Once they reached their destination, their trials and tribulations only increased, as they were denied their basic rights as workers. What’s more, they were deprived of their salaries and even food when they protested.

Amazon seems to have made sure to hire the Nepali workers through third-party firms so that it could dodge the blame of exploitation—a tell-tale sign of a capitalist giant that thrives at the dehumanisation of its workers.

Now that its wrongdoings have been exposed, instead of being in denial, Amazon should immediately intervene to improve the working conditions for the Nepali workers—and, by extension, all workers from the labour-supplying nations that work for the company.

The Saudi Arabian government, which has much debt to pay the hardworking Nepalis, should check the exploitations under its nose and make the working conditions better. It cannot remain the ruthless taskmaster it has been known for among the workers of the world.

Ultimately, the Nepali state should recognise that it cannot remain an eternal supplier of its youth to exploitative labour destinations. We have a very small window to utilise the demographic dividend, and the best option is to create a space for the youth to stay home and build our own economy.

The failure to reinvest the remittance sent by the youth has led to an increase in the consumer culture in Nepal. This vicious cycle of spending remittance earned through the exploitation of our youth should stop sooner than later. We should hurry up and create possibilities for work here in Nepal itself before the door slams shut on us.