While access to justice and redress is a challenge for most lower-income migrant workers, those employed in the gig economy face even more hurdles. They not only work on commissions — making it harder for them to take time off to see through complaints — but they are often employed by someone who is not their sponsor. The opaque subcontracting process can make it difficult to identify who is responsible for their working conditions, and who they can even lodge a complaint against. Despite the increasing numbers of migrants being employed in the gig sector, GCC states have not introduced laws or policies to regulate these terms of work.
Risking life and limb
In most gig jobs, the employment relationship is unclear. In this case, Wafiq Limousine did not have a direct contract with Rafeeq, but supplied its drivers to another company, Bin Kassim delivery services. Bin Kassim had a contract with Rafeeq, and deployed Wafiq’s employees as riders. In mid-November, Wafiq Limousine was able to secure a direct contract with Snoonu, another popular food delivery company in Qatar.
After getting the new contract, the employer insisted that Peter and his friends dedicate eight hours each for Snoonu and Rafeeq, resulting at times, in 16-hour work days for days on end. Despite the overloaded work schedule, the men still did not receive their wages.
“I had never been to a country with a World Cup before. I was excited since I thought it would be an opportunity to make more money. We were getting more jobs and tips at the beginning of the World Cup and since I was not getting paid by my boss, I was sending some of that money to my mother back home,” Peter said. However, during the peak of the World Cup in late November, Peter had a serious road accident while delivering for Rafeeq in Umm Salal.
“I called my boss and told him I had an accident, and the first thing he asked me was how the bike was. I was hurt. I was bleeding and could barely walk but all he was worried about was his bike," Peter recalls, adding that his employer told him to keep working despite injuries and threatened to terminate his contract.
The ambulance and the police arrived at the scene a few minutes later and gave Peter first aid, but when he asked if he could be taken to the hospital for further examination, the paramedics discouraged him and told him he would have to pay because he didn't have a Hamad Health card. Contractually, Wafiq Limousine is obligated to provide a health card or insurance to its employees.
“The Pakistanis have health cards but we Africans have no insurance,” Peter said, adding that their boss looks down on them and mistreats them more because they are Kenyan.
The person who knocked Peter down promised the police that he would cover Peter’s medical expenses, but when Peter called him the next day, he never responded. Following this accident, Peter stayed in his room, with untreated injuries for days and no food. “A few days later, members of the church I go to came to visit me and raised a bit of money, which helped me get on my feet,” he said.
According to Qatar Labour Law No.14 of 2004 - Opens in new tab, employers are responsible for covering the costs of treatments for workplace injuries. Employees who cannot continue to work as a result of work-related injuries should receive full salary during the first six months of treatment. After that, they should receive half pay until they are fully recovered or deemed permanently disabled. Despite this, Wafiq still pushed Peter to return to work before his injuries healed and refused to cover his medical treatment.
On 4 December 2022, Peter was involved in another minor accident while still recovering from injuries from the first incident.
“My boss told me I had to fix the bike, and I told him to use insurance since it wasn’t my responsibility. We disagreed. That same day, he cancelled my Qatar ID,” Peter recalls
After the cancellation of his ID, Peter, William, and Emanuel went to the Ministry of Labour’s office on 11 December and, for the first time, filed a complaint against their employer for wage theft and lack of medical insurance. The three were given a first hearing date on 15 December. However, their employer, who had been notified, did not show up. They were told to come back in a week with their boss. On 22 December, the three men went back to the labour office in the Industrial area with their employer. They were encouraged to reach a compromise with him, but they did not agree on anything.
James waited several more months, in vain, hoping the employer would pay his dues. He then expressed interest in finding another job so he could support his family, but the sponsor cancelled his QID. He then filed a complaint on 3 February 2023. but the employer did not show up for two subsequent hearings.
Following the multiple no-shows from the employer and failure to reach an agreement, the cases of all four workers have been transferred to the High Court. They are currently waiting for a court hearing date.
Retaliation and homelessness
An official at the labour office told them if they withdrew the case, the employer can ‘do anything to them’ and therefore, advised them to not withdraw. After the second hearing, the employer left them at the court, so they had to find their way back to their accommodation alone. He then retaliated by terminating their contracts, closing their phone lines, and preventing them from working. Moreover, he did not provide them with any money for food.
In January, Wafiq Limousine employees discovered that their boss had not been paying for their accommodation. The caretaker of the building in Madinat Khalifa where Peter and his colleagues lived repeatedly tried to force them out. In desperation, Peter and his friends approached the police station near Madinat Khalifa for assistance but were told to return to their accommodation and call the police if anything happened.
Such tactics are commonly used by employers to push workers to leave the country altogether, which would automatically withdraw their case. During the waiting period between filing a complaint and receiving a response, workers do not have enough legal protection to prevent retaliation. The power is firmly entrenched in the hands of the employer, who can cancel their ID anytime through the Metrash app or file an absconding case.
On 20 February, the situation took a turn for the worse when all the building residents, who worked for different companies, were evicted. The workers again approached the police for assistance, only to be asked, "Do you want to come live in the police station?" This left them with no option but to brave the elements and spend the night outside.
While those who worked for other companies were given alternative housing by their employers the next day, Peter and his compatriots were left to fend for themselves on the streets for almost a week, depending on the kindness of strangers to survive.
Peter recalls the week and said “[we were] living like cows outside.”
