Contract Enslavement of Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

By Romina Halabi

Slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) until 1963. It is unsurprising, then, that contract slavery of domestic servants continues to thrive in much of the Persian Gulf, where local economies prosper on the immigration of foreign workers. Economic incentives on the part of the sending and receiving nations encourage the migration of female workers from their home countries to Saudi Arabia and to the UAE. These incentives, coupled with restrictive contract systems, bind the female domestic worker to her employer and create an environment conducive to exploitation and involuntary servitude.

The surge of migrant workers into the Middle East began in the early 1970s, when increased petroleum production brought with it a demand for skilled and unskilled labor. As living standards rose for nationals, opportunities in the service sector for female labor expanded. It is no coincidence that once the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) started raising oil prices, oil-importing states began sending migrant workers to the Gulf. Currently, Saudi Arabia is the largest recipient of migrant domestic labor, with the UAE close behind with over seventy-five percent of its population classified as migrant workers. Today, domestic workers primarily emigrate from Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines, choosing to leave their families and migrate for a number of economic and social reasons.

Contrary to what may be understood traditionally, the women who migrate to the Middle East do so willingly. Many are educated and skilled and are not on the edge of abject poverty; in fact, many of these women come from lower-middle class families and take a proactive role in leaving the household in search of work. Although there is a key financial incentive to migrate, many women also do so because they are seeking adventure, independence, training, and upward social mobility. Pushed by these factors, women often incur substantial debts and pay recruitment agencies exorbitant fees to finance their migration. Relying on employment agencies and brokers, migrant domestic workers enter contractual bondage with employers whom they have never met before, leaving themselves vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Because slavery is illegal, slave-holders often use contracts as a means to legitimate and disguise the practice. In order for a migrant to work in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, she must first secure a visa through a method of sponsorship known as kafala, which legally binds the worker to her employer. Although both the sponsor and worker are capable of breaking contract, this ostensible equality is merely a ruse, because if the worker breaks her contract, she must pay the cost of her return ticket (a charge that would have otherwise been paid by the sponsor). She may also be fined or forced to pay debts to the recruitment agency. Through this system of sponsorship, the fate of the migrant worker is entirely dependent upon the goodwill of an employer who, at any time, can threaten her deportation if unsatisfied. Once in their host countries, these migrants are immediately required to surrender their passports to their employers. Thus, even before the worker steps foot in her host country, the systems of exploitation are already in place.

Lacking documentation and in a foreign country, migrant domestic workers find themselves under the charge of their female employer. Because Middle Eastern households often consist of extended families, work can be arduous. It oftentimes includes tasks such as cleaning, washing, cooking, tailoring, and taking care of children and the aged. Working hours are long, between eleven and twenty hours a day, with the maid subject to work both day and night at the whim of her employers. Since foreign maids can easily influence the upbringing of the children, cultural conflicts are numerous, and are complicated further by the potential for sexual relationships between the maid and the husband or adult male relatives. Racial discrimination and symbolic forms of prejudice against the migrant worker are also common.

Due to the individualized working environment of household labor, female domestic servants are the group most vulnerable to exploitation in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Domestic workers are often denied freedom of movement, and are either locked inside or forbidden to leave the home without permission. Violence against maids includes physical attacks ranging from rape to slapping; other forms of violence include overwork, including forcibly working in more than one household and the refusal of days off, non-payment of wages or a reduced salary. Maids also often experience poor living conditions, such as lack of food and privacy. Physical violence is usually perpetrated by the female employer, or madam of the household. Most workers have reported suffering from more than one type of violence during the course of their employment, and many are so traumatized by the experience that it even negatively affects their ability to reintegrate into society upon returning home.

For foreign domestic servants, there are few options available to deal with abuse. If escaped maids file police complaints against their sponsors, they are often arrested for running away, or are accused of lying. Government-run shelters for “runaway” domestics are a common destination for migrant women in Saudi Arabia. However, this supposed charity is only provided until their cases are settled—either by returning the women to their sponsors or by deportation. Reminiscent of the fugitive slave laws in the United States, Saudi newspapers run bounty ads for “escaped” domestic workers. Since the employers hold the migrant’s passport, changing jobs is a nearly impossible task. Thus, fearing the termination of their employment, domestic servants often endure continued exploitation and mistreatment rather than complain and face deportment.

Due to the seemingly voluntary nature of migrant labor, it is an unfortunate reality that many of these women effectively enslave themselves abroad in hopes of improving their economic situation at home. This is not to suggest that migrants are to blame for their plights; once the choice has been made and the contract signed, all future choices are restricted or nonexistent. Most of these domestic servants are unaware of what they are getting into, expecting to be paid the equivalent of $800 per month and instead finding their pay to be $100 a month, if anything at all. This deception, combined with the contract system, limits the mobility of the migrant domestic worker and leaves her at the mercy of employers who may also beat or sexually assault her. Because many of these migrants incur substantial debts to emigrate, it is common for women to return to the Gulf after their contract expires, thus continuing the sequence of exploitations and contract slavery.

The recruiting agencies sending the domestic servants to the Persian Gulf are well aware of the abuses these women face, as are the labor-sending countries themselves. Despite this knowledge, countries such as the Philippines, with growing populations and economic instability, continue to send female domestic workers abroad because the financial benefit of remittances cannot be ignored. For these countries, sending workers to the Middle East and to the Persian Gulf reduces the number of unemployed, and lowers the danger of social dissatisfaction. In Sri Lanka, domestic service workers are the most lucrative “export commodity.” This commodification of the transnational “maid trade” provides a cheap and flexible labor force willing to endure low wages—an attractive feature for both sending and receiving countries—and also reduces migrants to mere objects to be bought and sold in the global marketplace.

In comparison with other forms of slavery, the involuntary servitude of migrant domestic workers is difficult to eradicate because it is so deeply embedded in the global markets of the labor- sending and receiving countries. The women who migrate to the UAE and Saudi Arabia do so voluntarily, submitting themselves to their sponsors with the hope of bettering both themselves and their families. Unfortunately, survival itself becomes the greatest hurdle, and thoughts of visiting family and sending remittances become fantasies. Without international pressure, the exploitation of migrant domestics is certain to persist.