Posted on 12/17/2009 8:03:10 AM PST by SmithL
WALNUT CREEK — Almost a month after an internal probe pushed 50 immigrant workers out of their jobs at a downtown Target store, interviews with former and current store employees portray a mass firing that was selective, planned in advance and confusing to many of those forced out.
Sparked by an allegation that illegal immigrants worked on the night shift, the Walnut Creek store last month attracted the attention of the Minneapolis corporate headquarters of the 1,700-store chain. The company sent a team to investigate, according to several people close to the incident.
By the end of the second week of November, 50 Latino employees — at least half of whom say they were given no warning of what was coming — were out of their jobs. It was not a layoff, Target said last week.
Nor did the 50 employees quit, said Rocio Avila of the San Francisco-based legal advocacy group La Raza Centro Legal, which has intervened on their behalf.
But whether the Latino workers were fired, or were otherwise compelled to leave on their own because they did not have the proper documents, remains a point of contention. Target says the store questioned some workers in mid-November about their eligibility to work in the United States, prompting most of those workers to voluntarily resign. It will not say any more than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
The 39-year-old woman said she tried to comply with the store's request for more documentation, but her situation is complicated because she has a pending case with the government concerning an expired work permit."
What a steaming pile of apologist drivel this article is. Expired permit = no permit.
Check out the HR department. I bet you find La Raza (The Racists) supporters there.
You are correct. As far as I know there is no requirement that the employer report the employee in question to anyone.
Target was probably under pressure to unleash the hounds. Some had been there 15 years. I doubt “following the law” was the inducement. A huge fine was ;-)
The employer has no enforcement mechanism available, apart from establishing and following employer policies that accord with the law. It would be up to the feds to try and find these people.
But, employers have a better ability to pay large fines, so there is much more motivation to go after employers than to deport democrat voters.
E.g., google for "social security match letters".
Target was a bit premature. /s
Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) introduced a bill to the Senate that is a companion bill to Zoe Lofgren’s bill in the House. The bills will effectively staple green cards onto the diplomas of aliens with a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education in the field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM). In order to qualify for the instant green card they must find a U.S. job in a field related to their degree.
There will be no numerical limits to the number of STEM related green cards that can be issued. The two bills are described below:
S. 3084
Sponsor: Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Cosponsor: 1
Introduced: June 5, 2008
H.R. 6039
Sponsor: Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Cosponsors: 19
Introduced: May 13, 2008
H.R. 6039 (for house - S. 3084 in the Senate) if enacted would prove to be a disaster for American workers by providing an auto green card to every foreign national completing an education. In a time when 600,000 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) students graduate from college - yet only 120,000 find jobs - there is a real problem with American finding jobs.
H.R. 6039 would pour fuel on the fire by flooding the market with far more college grads than needed, far more than there are jobs for them, circumventing the law of Supply and Demand, and driving down wages due to oversupply. This would prove to be a complete disaster and more of the continuing assault on America’s middle class.
And then we have HR 4321 Its provisions include repealing e-Verify, reporting of illegal aliens in the workforce, and making it a crime of racketeering to smuggle aliens into the U.S. The following excerpts were taken from the text of the bill and the list of its sponsors.
Pg 467 of HR 4321
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) AMENDMENTS.—
(A) REPEAL OF E-VERIFY.—Sections 401, 402, 403, 404, and 405 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note) are repealed.
(B) REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—
(i) REPORT ON EARNINGS OF ALIENS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WORK.
—Subsection (c) of section 290 (8 U.S.C. 1360) is repealed.
(ii) REPORT ON FRAUDULENT USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS.
— Subsection (b) of section 414 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1360 note) is repealed.
(C) REPEAL OF DEFINITION.—Paragraph (1)(F) of section 1961 of title 18, United States Code, is repealed.
(1) “racketeering activity” means ... (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain,
Is your critter here?
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 12/15/2009
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 12/15/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 12/15/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 12/15/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 12/15/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 12/15/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 12/15/2009
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] - 12/15/2009
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 12/15/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 12/15/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 12/15/2009
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 12/15/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 12/15/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 12/15/2009
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] - 12/15/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 12/15/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 12/15/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 12/15/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 12/15/2009
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 12/15/2009
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 12/15/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 12/15/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 12/15/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 12/15/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 12/15/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 12/15/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 12/15/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 12/15/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 12/15/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 12/15/2009
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 12/15/2009
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 12/15/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 12/15/2009
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 12/15/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 12/15/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 12/15/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 12/15/2009
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 12/15/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 12/15/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 12/15/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 12/15/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 12/15/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 12/15/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 12/15/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 12/15/2009
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 12/15/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 12/15/2009
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 12/15/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 12/15/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] - 12/15/2009
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 12/15/2009
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] - 12/15/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 12/15/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 12/15/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 12/15/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 12/15/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 12/15/2009
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 12/15/2009
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 12/15/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 12/15/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 12/15/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 12/15/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 12/15/2009
But, employers have a better ability to pay large fines, so there is much more motivation to go after employers than to deport democrat voters.
The point of that question of mine -- is -- that after the employee is gone, the employer doesn't have a responsibility to pursue them and seek some kind of "resolution" or "justice" or whatever, like that.
In other words, the employer can tell the employee... we'll have to follow through with this if you stay here and you cannot produce the proper paperwork, but if you leave on your own, then we won't pursue the matter with you any further...
That's the point of what I was talking about... :-)
You are correct. As far as I know there is no requirement that the employer report the employee in question to anyone.
Then, from the employer's standpoint, that's the easiest thing to have happen -- which is, to let the employee know that they won't follow through with anything if they leave on their own -- but -- if they stay, the employer will be forced to follow through and pursue the matter, by law.
This puts it all on the employee to do whatever is necessary -- on their own, and this is the perfect position for an employer to be in... :-)
The point of my reply is that the employer does not have the choice you are referencing. All the employer can do is tell the employee that (s)he will have to produce valid documents within a given timeframe or be terminated. Period.
There is nothing else an employer can do, as an employer is not responible for initiating or perpetuating a criminal proceeding against an employee who may have violated immigration law.
You can also bet that all the other Target stores in the country have managers who are also “getting the message” and they are doing some quick checking on all their paperwork, too (and “talking” to any relevant employees... LOL...).
And that’s a good thing... :-)
The point of my reply is that the employer does not have the choice you are referencing. All the employer can do is tell the employee that (s)he will have to produce valid documents within a given timeframe or be terminated. Period.
That part, no matter how true it is -- is not what employers like to do. They know that firing someone can produce lawsuits afterwards -- while, just giving someone a choice to stick around and face consequences -- or -- leave on their own, is the better choice (for the employer). If the employee leaves, then anything that comes back to the employer, they'll say, "Well, the employee chose to leave on their own..." :-)
If an employee stays, then they just do what they have to do... no big deal...
In talking to an employee, that's where I would be starting with the employee... :-)
It is indeed.
BUMP!
I believe we agree that illegal immigrants losing their jobs is a good thing, so please don’t interpret this as an attempt to argue.
However, employment law isn’t really that simple. Whenever an employer can point to a literal thing, especially a piece or 2 of paper, as a justification for termination, they are not slow to move. And, it is clear, when you read the immigration laws as they pertain to employers, the USCIS is probably more concerned about preventing discrimintation based on national origin than preventing an illegal immigrant from illegally obtaining employment.
So, what is the net result? Common sense measures that most freepers would agree are great preventatives couldn’t be implemented without having a DOL inspector on your property.
Oh, and if you try to keep the DOL off your property, then ICE shows up.
The gov’t is bleeding money. Fines bring money. Follow the money.
However, employment law isn’t really that simple.
Just that one sentence -- there -- gives all the reason I would have to have to encourage an employee to leave on their own..., even when the employer knows they can fire the employee... :-)
Aaahhhh, yes, then you can be subject to a lawsuit for constructive discharge...and around and around we go! ;o)
Believe me... if there’s a reason for a lawsuit if and when an employee leaves on their own — there’s about a ten-time probability for a lawsuit if you fire that same employee... :-)
The Drive-by media can’t seem to get it through their heads that illegal border crashers have no right to employment, nor to anything else here.
Why should an employer risk prosecution to keep criminals employed?
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.