Turning Up the Heat on the Immigration Issue in the Texas Legislature
Attorney-General Abbott was not having to go too far out on a limb since he only opined that if the closely followed an Arizona law that did the same and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals followed the 9th Circuit's holding in Arizona Contractors Association, Inc. v. Candelaria the law would be permissible. (GA-0695). Some of these will no doubt be among the heated issues being fought at the end of the session. Hat tip to DLR ($) for the story on the AG's opinion. Labels: immigration
Posted
9:12 AM
by Michael Fox
Those who follow Texas legislature know it is not really until April and May that the legislative process really kicks into high gear. Although it meets in regular session only five months every 2 years, most voting on substantive legislation occurs in that two month period. Highly contentious matters that take a lot of legislative time can block others from consideration.
My guess is that the legislative calendar just got a lot "tighter" as the state attorney general, Greg Abbott issued an opinion that two controversial measures that would crack down on employer's for hiring illegal aliens would not be pre-empted by the federal immigration law.
The question presented was:"If Texas legislation (1) provided for the suspension or revocation of the business licensure of employers of unauthorized aliens; (2) relied solely upon a federal determination of immigration status; and (3) did not impose civil or criminal sanctions, would the law be permissible under the U.S. Constitution?"
The Texas legislature has a host of bills dealing with immigration. Among them are:
No En Banc Hearing on 9th Circuit Ruling Forbidding Inquiry on Immigration Status
Less Than 15 Employees? There's Always Immigration Discrimination
Labels: immigration
"But He's an Illegal Immigrant" Argument Held Prejudicial by Texas Supreme Court
Labels: immigration, trial
The Immigration Issue: Lighting the Fire
Among the possible results following the implementation of the regulation It may well be that some sort of catalyst is needed to provide the necessary foundation for a solution to this complex problem. It is possible these regulations will be that catalyst. On the other hand, my apprehensions about the law of unintended consequences are quite high. Update (8/10/07): Here is a link to the final "no match" regulations and also a brief summary prepared by my firm. Additonally, the Department of Homeland Security indicated its intent to increase civil penalties as much as 25%. See the Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law, for more information on other steps announced by the Department today. Labels: immigration, political
Arizona Immigration Law Valid According to Divided Supreme Court
Labels: immigration, Supreme Court
Immigration Battle Coming to Texas Legislature
It will be interesting to see how much traction this type of legislation gets as Berman himself thinks it is possible that his proposed legislation will be blocked by the Senate or vetoed by the Governor. It is also a reminder that we are into the second week of filing season for the 81st session of the legislature which convenes on January 9, 2009. Stay tuned for summaries of filings of bills of interest to employers. Labels: immigration, political
Immigration - A Summary of the Problem for Business
Four Pillars for Immigration Reform
Labels: immigration, political
POWER To The People and Unintended Consequences
Labels: immigration
The Law of Unintended Consequences: Immigration and E-Verify
Labels: immigration
2 Week Error - Maybe $700,000 Worth, Or Why You Need A Good Immigration Lawyer
New Bush Immigration Proposal
Free Government Advice from the EEOC, NLRB and the DOL
Religion is very broadly defined under Title VII. Religious beliefs, practices, and observances include those that are theistic in nature, as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices, and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer. Immigrant employees and even non-immigrant employees could reasonably believe that the bill could impact their interests as employees. For these reasons, employee attendance at and support of these demonstrations in our view was within the the scope of the "mutual aid or protection" clause. It is likely that the battleground in the immigration cases will be over the third principle. And a final bit of advice from the government comes from the folks at DOL, reminding that as of today, the Federal minimum wage increases to $6.55. Labels: FLSA, religion, traditional
Living and Losing at the American Dream - Jail Time and Immigration
Prosecution is long overdue in this area. Honestly, the government's efforts have been at the border, not with the employer. Obviously, the government has signaled a change with this case. Labels: immigration
Immigration - Politics v. Pocketbook
Oh Those I-9's, and the Criminal Law - Another Case Where the Employer is In The Middle
The EEOC, The 5th Circuit and My First Post
Posted 9:55 PM by Michael Fox Labels: EEOC
EFCA - A View From the Field By Supporters
”Why is labor continuing to frame the EFCA debate in a way that its own base feels makes no strategic sense? It could be that labor lacks a decision-making process to change course. SEIU’s Andy Stern is the nation’s most politically influential labor leader. But his Change to Win labor federation is disintegrating, he is in outright warfare with John Wilhelm of HERE, and he is not in a position to sit down with other union heads –particularly those with the AFL-CIO – and work out a new campaign plan. Labels: political
Those Good Blogs Just Keep Coming - Working Immigrants
Posted
1:03 AM
by Michael Fox
Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit refused to reverse a magistrate's order prohibiting the defendant from inquiring into the immigration status of a group of plaintiffs alleging they had been adversely impacted by an employer's English language testing policy. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. (9th Cir. 4/13/04) [pdf]. Yesterday, over the vigorous dissent of four judges, the full Court declines to hear the case en banc. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. (9th Cir. 9/20/04) [pdf].
Spanish born Judge Carlos T. Bea, the newest member of the 9th Circuit writing for the four dissenters to the denial for en banc rehearing sets out his basic argument: The panel’s decision allows a plaintiff who claims that racially discriminatory firing caused backpay and frontpay lost wages, to refuse to answer deposition questions touching on her place of birth and immigration status.
Thus, the panel’s decision impedes the ascertainment of the truth in advance of trial, thereby profoundly subverting the purposes of liberal Discovery in civil cases. The decision also frustrates the purposes of national Immigration policy: to limit employment benefits to American citizens and foreign persons authorized to work in this country.
It may be tempting to increase the settlement value or the award of a minority worker’s racial discrimination lawsuit by allowing her to include claimed lost wages and bar questioning of her immigration status. After all, the employer hired her and benefitted from her labor. While she was working, the employer did not dig too deep into whether her papers were in order. Now that she asserts her civil rights against the employer’s claimed discriminatory firing, the employer gets righteous, and for all the wrong reasons.
If estoppel by the employer’s acts could bar enforcement of our country’s Immigration laws, the panel’s opinion might not be so objectionable. Of course, we know such private conduct cannot frustrate explicitly stated congressional public policy. See Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 151-52 (2002) (holding that plaintiffs, who were unauthorized aliens, were not entitled to backpay as a remedy for violation of the NLRA because such remedy would “unduly trench upon” federal immigration policy expressed in the IRCA).
We risk corrupting an admirable civil rights policy to prevent discrimination when we rely on evasions to enforce it. ...
Posted
4:17 PM
by Michael Fox
Hat tip to Professor Rick Bales at Workplace Prof Blog for picking up the DOJ's announcement of a new video for employers about their responsibilities and the rights of employees under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DOJ Releases Video About Immigration-Related Workplace Discrimination.
As you can see, rather than being enforced by the EEOC or a state agency, it is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices of the Department of Justice. From the FAQ Page for OSC, here's what the Act prohibits, which also includes national origin discrimination for employers not covered by Title VII and retaliation against those who participate in the OSC process:
*Citizenship or immigration status discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, by employers with four or more employees, subject to certain exceptions. Employers may not treat individuals differently because they are, or are not, U.S. citizens or work authorized individuals. U. S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Exceptions: permanent residents who do not apply for naturalization within six months of eligibility are not protected from citizenship status discrimination. Citizenship status discrimination which is otherwise required to comply with law, regulation, executive order, or government contract is permissible by law.
My recollection is that the OSC has been around since the mid-1980's without a lot of impact, but when immigration heats up again as it inevitability will, it's good to be aware of its existence.
* National origin discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, by employers with more than three and fewer than 15 employees. Employers may not treat individuals differently because of their place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they are perceived as looking or sounding "foreign." U.S. citizens and all work authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has national origin jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees.
* Unfair documentary practices related to verifying the employment eligibility of employees. Employers may not, on the basis of citizenship status or national origin, request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility and identity reject reasonably genuine-looking documents or specify certain documents over others. U.S. citizens and all work authorized immigrants are protected from document abuse.
* Retaliation. Individuals who file charges with OSC, who cooperate with an OSC investigation, who contest action that may constitute unfair documentary practices or discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin, or who otherwise assert their rights under the INA's anti-discrimination provision are protected from retaliation.
Particularly for those small employers who don't normally have to worry about discrimination.
Posted
11:56 AM
by Michael Fox
Given that President Obama turned his attention to immigration reform this week, see NYT story, it is somewhat ironic that the issue also surfaced in a more unlikely place, the Texas Supreme Court. The issue before the Court -- whether or not a jury should be informed (repeatedly) that the driver involved in a fatal collision was an illegal immigrant. The underlying suit was against his employer for negligent entrustment.
In TXI Transportation Company v. Hughes, (Tx 3.12.10) [pdf] the Court held that such information was not only inadmissible, but was in fact prejudicial so that its admission was not harmless error and required a retrial.
The Court's holding was no doubt influenced by the fact that plaintiff had made the illegal status, and in fact the issue of illegal immigration, a central part of its trial theme.
Justice Medina wrote for the Court:
That "hedge" including calling Rodriguez as the very first witness and the first questions were about his immigration statuts. As the Court noted that was followed by:
over forty references to Rodriguez’s status, including thirty-five to his status as an “illegal immigrant” and seven to his prior deportation.
And it was not just questions to him, TXI representatives were also cross-examined regarding whether they owed a “duty” to the public to prevent an “illegal” from driving a TXI truck:
In fact, there was a lot of evidence that was available about Rodriguez, since he:
Still the Supreme Court rejected the use of such evidence both on substantive grounds and for impeachment. Under the substantive law of negligent entrustment it was not relevant, since his illegal status had not caused the collision.
By its holding that it was also improper impeachment evidence, the Court has made it a case of broader importance.
Justice Medina concluded forcefully for the eight members of the court who participated in the decision:
Such appeals to racial and ethnic prejudices, whether 'explicit and brazen' or 'veiled and subtle,' cannot be tolerated because they undermine the very basis of our judicial process.
Hard to argue with that.
Ironically, in this case the ruling bailed out an employer, but from an employment law context it is employers who are most likely to feel stymied by its reach.
Supplemental information (3.12.10): For more background information on the case itself see the AAS article about the oral argument last May. One aspect that is significant is that the underlying judgment was originally $22.4 million but was reduced to $15.8 million by the appellate court. Four members of a single family were killed in the accident.
Posted
9:54 AM
by Michael Fox
Shortly, perhaps this week according to the story in today's NYT, the Department of Homeland Security is set to issue final rules which would require employers to fire workers who use false social security numbers. U.S. Set for a Crackdown on Illegal Hiring.
The final regulations, first proposed in draft form last summer, had been delayed awaiting potential Congressional action on an overall solution to the immigration issue which of course did not happen.
Among the likely results of the final regulations between now and the end of the year —
Posted
11:49 AM
by Michael Fox
To the political bonfire of illegal immigration, the U.S. Supreme Court has just dumped several gallons of petrol, with its decision upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which places penalties for hiring illegal workers on most Arizona employers and requires that employers use E-verify. U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (5/26/11) [pdf].
The nitty-gritty of the legal argument is this. When Congress passed the Immigration Reform & Control Act, it expressly pre-empted ""any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ . . . unauthorized aliens."
It is the parenthetical phrase "(other than through licensing and similar laws)" that the Arizona legislature has driven the proverbial truck through, and now the Supreme Court has backed them up.
I will leave it to the immigration experts to talk about the impact on that particular body of law. The politico's can talk about what will happen from a political standpoint. My amateur observation is that many states, including Texas, will pass similar laws, a move will be made in Congress to roll back the savings clause, and all of these actions will be more for political purposes than for resolution of a national problem.
From a positive perspective, it is possible given that the defendant in this case was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that this will be the spark (or explosion) that leads to serious discussions to come up with a rational national solution. (And I say to myself, and pigs may fly.)
As a textbook statement of what the world should be like, I would not quarrel with the logic of Justice Robert's statement.
Posted
9:18 AM
by Michael Fox
Or at least it will if there is much action on bills to be filed by Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler), Berman Will File 9 Bills About Illegal Immigration. The Texas legislature has not been heavily involved in the immigration fight that has been a major topic in some other state's recent legislative sessions but that could change this year.
According to the paper's story, the bills to be offered by Berman would among other things:
Posted
11:34 AM
by Michael Fox
If you want a quick read on why business is squirming over this issue, check out BusinessWeek's story, Immigration Reform: Why Business Could Get Burned. In a nutshell the Republican party is splitting into two factions on this issue. If you want a hint of how big a split, listen to the rhetoric from the "immigration is a security problem" branch: The conservative movement can either be the voice of principle or it can be the voice of the Chamber of Commerce. But it cannot be both.
Representative Tom Tancredo (R. Colo) getting a standing ovation at the Conservative Action Political Conference in February.
Legislation already passed by the House could result in a 12 billion (that's billion with a b) compliance problem according to Angelo I. Amador, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's immigration policy director.
This is one time where as bad as the status quo may be, it may be far better than any solution this Congress can produce.
Posted
12:01 PM
by Michael Fox
Having just finished with one hot potato, at least two Senators are ready to tackle yet another. And surprisingly enough, it is a bi-partisan effort. In a Washington Post opinion piece, Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham - The right way to mend immigration offer four premises on which any new legislation should be based:
Our plan has four pillars:
Obviously, the biometric card will set off concerns in some circles. Trying to get ahead of the curve on that one, the Senators were quick to point out:
Given how stormy the last time immigration reform was raised and given the hard feelings generated by the healthcare battle, it would not seem like an auspicious time.
Still stranger things have happened and if the bipartisan spirit continues, with even a low level of Republican support in the Senate, there should have a fighting chance for reform.
However, it should be remembered that this is an issue which does not necessarily divide only along partisan lines, but also has a geographic element. Even more importantly, there is a long way between agreement on concepts and agreement on final language of a bill. And just like biometric cards, the pathway to citizenship is a concept that will be a non-starter for many.
I don't think President Obama needs to set aside any days in the near future for a signing ceremony, but it certainly is an interesting start.
Posted
5:10 PM
by Michael Fox
Immigration is a political hot button, which may be one of the greatest understatements of the year. It is certainly an issue on which people disagree, unfortunately, often disagreeably.
I certainly don't want to add to that unhelpful dialogue, but I have to admit my first reaction on reading the substance of the POWER Act (Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act) was to quickly jump to what I forsee as unintended consequences. The bill was introduced by Senator Menendez (D - NJ) and at this point has only three co-sponsors, Senators Gillibrand (D-NY), Murray (D-Wash), and Harkin (D-Iowa).
In short, the bill would prevent the deportation of individuals during the pendency of certain proceedings. One is criminal prosecutions where the individual is important to the prosecution. I can see how that could help overall crime enforcement and since the initiating action, a crime, is by some one other than the person tryng to avoid being deported, not that easy to abuse.
The other type of proceeding hower is serious labor violations. Under that section, an individual could avoid deportation if the individual:
(2)(A) has filed, or is a material witness to, a bona fide workplace claim (as defined in section 274A(e)(10)(B)(iii)(II) of such Act, as added by section 3(b)); and
A summary of key provisions by the National Immigration Law Council makes it seem that protection from deportation would extend to a civil claim:
(B) has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to--
(i) a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official;
(ii) a Federal, State, or local prosecutor;
(iii) a Federal, State, or local judge;
(iv) the Department of Homeland Security;
(v) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
(vi) the Department of Labor;
(vii) the National Labor Relations Board; or
(viii) other Federal, State, or local authorities investigating, prosecuting, or seeking civil remedies related to the workplace claim.
It is not clear whether the suit has to be prosecuted by the government or if protection is extended to a suit where the individual employee is the plaintiff.
Although there is a provision that filing a claim just to avoid deportation will not be allowed, it does not take a genius to figure out that this statute will lead to a lot more suits and that "protection" against suits filed for that purpose is feeble to non-existent.
One of the aims of the legislation is certainly laudable, to provide a counter-balance to those unscrupulous employers who hire illegal aliens, take advantage of them and use either actual immigration enforcement or the threat of it to insulate them from liability for their wrong doing.
I won't argue with that aim, but on first blush, I have to believe there is a better solution.
Hat tip to Prof Marcia McCormick at Workplace Prof Blog, Bill to Protect Non-Citizen Workers.
Posted
2:15 PM
by Michael Fox
A recent article in Businesweek, A Verification System for New Hires Backfires makes clear just how complex the immigration issue is.
The story of one flower grower's attempt to utilize E-Verify, the national registration system that allows an employer to check on worker's eligibility (after they are hired) has made it very difficult to staff his green houses, particularly during the spring growing season. Even accounting for some hyperbole his quote is fairly chilling: "Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those that pass fail to work."
The system, now utilized by about 5% of America's employers according to the article, would be mandatory if a bill, H.R. 2885 introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (actually my congressman) were to become law. If you want to check out the E-Verify website for yourself, go here.
The bill has been passed by the House Judiciary Committee, and is still pending in the House Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means. See here for Congressional action.
The stop in Ways and Means is not just an idle one, since according to a 2008 Congressional Budget report, a national mandate would cut federal tax revenue by more than 17 billion dollars (that's billion with a B).
Everyone knows that immigration is a major problem that actually needs a solution. And it seems to me to be area where the law of unintended consequences could be particularly relevant.
A hat tip to Kriss Dunn at [the hr capitalist] for his post, 99 Problems: E-Verify Ain't One ...
Posted
10:28 AM
by Michael Fox
Especially now where rules are no doubt more carefully scrutinized as immigration, outsourcing and homeland security are a potent and powerful combination. Just how complicated, and potentially expensive an immigration screw up can be is seen in this story from the El Paso Times on the possible consequences of hiring a group of Filipino teachers 2 weeks early.
Posted
2:41 PM
by Michael Fox
A lot has been written about Bush's new proposal and no doubt more will be as it begins to wend its way through the legislative process. If you just want a succinct overview, try this one prepared by Andrew Galeziowski , one of our shareholders who specializes in immigration, :
---- No amnesty/legalization or immediate path to a green card
---- Forgiveness for prior violations of immigration laws provided to those entering the program
---- Temporary Worker status available for three years, with the potential for renewal.
---- Workers can apply for a green card under existing rules (no new green card program)
---- Workers must pay a one-time fee to register for the program
---- I-9 enforcement to increase
---- US employers must prove unavailability of US workers - suggested methodology will be similar to current H-2B program
Posted
9:51 AM
by Michael Fox
You can agree or disagree with it, but it is always helpful to know what the regulators think.
Tuesday, the EEOC published its updated Compliance Manual section on Religious Discrimination. Just as a reminder as to how broad religious discrimination can be, the definition of religion used by the EEOC is:
Also on Tuesday, the NLRB General Counsel Ron Meissberg issued a Guideline Memorandum Concerning Unfair Labor Practice Charges Involving Political Advocacy. Although it could have obvious implications during this election season, the reason for the advice memorandum was the immigration law demonstrations in 2006 which included employees leaving their jobs to protest proposed legislation.
According to the analytical approach set out in the memorandum, the GC concludes such conduct is covered by §7 of the NLRA:
However, coverage is not the key question, the question is whether it is protected activity. That requires both coverage by §7 and an analysis of the "means employed." The memorandum set out three principles that will guide that determination:
identified employment concern is subject to restrictions imposed by lawful and neutrally applied work rules; and
Posted
7:47 PM
by Michael Fox
A blog I haven't followed long, the New Jersey Employment Law Blog has a post about a West Coast sentencing of the owner and manager of Golden State Fence Co. following their plea bargain for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. See, Hiring Undocumented Workers: The Stakes Just Went Up for Business.
Quoting the sentencing judge:
There's no question that pressure is rising in all parts of the country, and although it won't be just limited to them, I would wager that it is the small business that is most vulnerable.
It's ironic that Golden State Fence's website has this banner on the top: "Home of the American Dream" which I am pretty sure is what the illegal immigrants that were working for the company thought they were participating in. It's even more poignant when you read the company history:Golden State Fence is a Family owned and operated business led by Founder Mel Kay, Jr., President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Born and raised in Southern California during the Great Depression, Mr. Kay came from a family of 11 children. A classic American Dream story, Mr. Kay spent his childhood working to help support the family and left high school early at his father's orders to work full time. Shortly after this his father's untimely premature death left Mr. Kay as the primary supporter of the family. He started his first business in 1965 on the ground that Golden State Fence sits today. Over the last 40 years Mr. Kay has employed thousands of Southern California residents and today Golden State Fence employs over 700 individuals at 8 locations throughout Southern California. Golden State Fence is widely recognized as California's leader in the Fence industry and is one of the Inland Empires leading businesses. Mr. Kay has always taken great pride in building Golden State Fence based on the principles of Integrity, Honesty and Hard Work.
Now I don't know anything about about the facts and this story from NPR makes it clear it was not just a one time problem.
However, it only emphasizes to me that there has to be a better way to deal with immigration than penalizing those who want to work, and usually it is hot, dirty work at that, and those who want to give them that chance.
http://fencewizard.blogspot.com/search?q=mel+kay
Or skip to the final article here:
http://fencewizard.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-golden-state-fence-guilty-or.html
I enjoy your website - it is an excellent resource, I am adding a link to your site today. Thank you.
Posted
2:06 PM
by Michael Fox
Immigration is a hot button issue, with the most vocal being those who want much stricter enforcement. That seems to be where the low hanging political fruit is. On the other side of the debate are employers who are dependent on immigrants for the continued operations of their businesses. A definite pocket book issue. The NYT's story, The Search for Illegal Immigrants Stops at the Workplace, gives some background.
This may be the next area where we see more "criminalization" of business behavior. Although certainly there are times when that may be appropriate, it should be a last resort.
Posted
7:36 AM
by Michael Fox
In 1986 (could it really have been that long ago?), the Immigration Reform Control Act was passed making it illegal for an employer to hire undocumented aliens, but also increasing penalties for discriminating against individuals because of their national origin. The way to avoid being caught in the middle was the now infamous I-9. [pdf]. But what was not accounted for was the tremendous boon in the false document market. Or at least that was what a jury apparently believed in acquitting Tyson Foods' of criminal charges of conspiring to hire illegal workers. As reported by the AP part of the company's defense was the Department of Justice brochure, Look At The Facts, Not the Faces. [pdf]. As one juror noted, there was just too much "gray area" for employers. Too often when society has goals that are not aligned -- prevent illegal immigration but don't discriminate because of national origin -- employers are left to sort it out. When it becomes criminal for getting it wrong, it may be time to rethink the issue.
Posted
8:32 AM
by Michael Fox
On July 17, 2002 not knowing what I was getting into, this was my very first post on Jottings By an Employer's Lawyer:For lack of a green card .....
Yesterday the 5th Circuit decided a suit was timely notwithstanding a Katrina delayed receipt of a right to sue notice from the EEOC, Duron v. Albertson's LLC (5th Cir. 2/17/09) [pdf]. Saying what I felt those many years ago, the Court concluded:
The argument for the three days is the period applied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for service of documents by mail. That would make sense, and hopefully will be the standard applied when the Court is forced to decide that issue. In closing, we note that if the EEOC had followed its former practice of sending right-to-sue letters by certified mail, this dispute would, in all likelihood, have never arisen.
When that happens, I will happily update this post.
Sending things out by certified mail can sometimes cause more problems than it resolves.
: 2:13 PM
Posted
9:44 AM
by Michael Fox
The BeyondChron, a San Francisco alternative newspaper has an interesting article by Randy Shaw, The Obama/Progressive Agenda: A Progress Report, that focuses on the fate of three progressive items -- health care, immigration reform and EFCA. It's his view on the latter that is of most interest here.
His reporting is that the "almost universal belief" among labor activists is that framing the argument in favor of EFCA around the "right of workers to avoid secret ballot provisions," has turned out not to be a winner.
If that is true, and everything I see makes me agree that it makes sense, Shaw poses and answers the logical question:
Shaw's hope is that the two primary legislative sponsors, Senator Harkin and/or Representative George Miller will take the lead in initiating a new plan.
In many ways EFCA is a great poker game. Both organized labor and the business opposition so far have been saying that there is no compromise on this issue. It is all or nothing. If the poker game is only the 111th Congress, then organized labor's continued statement of this position is nothing more than a bluff.
It would be the irony of all ironies if the labor movement were to founder in achieving substantive labor law reform because of internal fighting.
Posted
3:11 PM
by Michael Fox
I am so behind on even knowing about, much less recognizing, a lot of the wonderful blogs that are being written in employment related fields. In a year where immigration is the one of the most important issues, how I could have missed Working Immigrants by Peter Rousmaniere is beyond me, (not to mention embarrassing).
And if it hadn't been for the good folks at Workers' Comp Insider, I still wouldn't know about it. In any event, I couldn't agree more with Peter's premise —Most developed nations owe enormous debts of gratitude to yesterday’s, today’s and tomorrow’s immigrants. Their physical and mental labors are often taken for granted, undervalued, excluded from collective memory.
To get a sense for what Peter has been up to his first year, check out his Tidbits from the first year of this blog.
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
