Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: CA AG to go after Employers if they cooperate with the Feds...

  1. #1
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,003

    Default CA AG to go after Employers if they cooperate with the Feds...

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...195434409.html

    The title is a tad click baity, but the conditions that caught my eye:

    Requires employers to ask immigration agents for a warrant before granting access to a worksite.

    Requires employers to notify their workers before a federal audit of employee records.

    Prohibits employers from re-verifying information on employment verification forms, unless compelled to by federal law.

    I get the unfounded mandate to have localities hold people until ICE shows up argument, but this seems to fall way outside that issue and sounds like obstruction to me.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  2. #2
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,629
    What kind of obstruction do you think it is? It's absolutely obstruction in general English, there is strong objection to current federal immigration policy in general and not just to unfunded obligations it places on localities and this is a straight-up assertion of states' rights over federal supremacy. It's not legal obstruction of justice however. Employers can already do all those things on their own, completely legally, if they so willed it. It would be within their rights and even arguably an ethical obligation. What the CA law does is prohibit them from voluntarily waiving these rights when those rights impact the interests of subordinate others with their own rights and expectations of employer behavior. It's very akin to confidentiality obligations.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #3
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    It seems bizarre to me to have employers be the pawns of what seems like a tug of war between various government agencies.

    It should absolutely be within an employers right to demand a warrant before granting access to a worksite.
    It should also absolutely be within an employers right to NOT demand a warrant before granting access to a worksite.

    The site is the employers site and it should be their decision whether to grant access or not. If agents of the Federal government request access then co-operating with the Federal government should not put you at liability with the State government. I don't see how an employer co-operating by granting access to their site is violating anyone else's rights.

    If agents of the government turned up at my workplace and I co-operate with them I would be mightily pissed off if that put me in the dock due to one branch of government fighting a turf war with another branch of government and I'm a pawn in their game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #4
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...195434409.html

    The title is a tad click baity, but the conditions that caught my eye:

    Requires employers to ask immigration agents for a warrant before granting access to a worksite.

    Requires employers to notify their workers before a federal audit of employee records.

    Prohibits employers from re-verifying information on employment verification forms, unless compelled to by federal law.

    I get the unfounded mandate to have localities hold people until ICE shows up argument, but this seems to fall way outside that issue and sounds like obstruction to me.
    Which employees do you believe will most often be disadvantaged by violations of these laws? You already know the answer: non-white foreigners, regardless of whether they're legal or illegal residents. When ICE will search a work-site or audit employee records, they'll focus on people with certain kinds of names, regardless of their immigration status. We've already seen this happen in the past few months when ICE agents have stopped eg. buses and demanded to see IDs of people, brown people in particular. These laws protect not only illegal immigrants but also regular immigrants as well as native brownies from unreasonable or poorly-justified fishing expeditions by federal authorities.

    The re-verification prohibition isn't particularly strange. Employers are already prohibited from eg. re-verifying documentation that hasn't expired. Because the verification process involves the E-Verify system, re-verification risks bringing employees to the attention of federal authorities. Which employees do you think employers or managers would be most likely to subject to premature and unnecessary re-verification? Foreigners, brownies.

    This is not obstruction, it is a legitimate constraint on federal power at the state level. It holds federal authorities to precisely the high standard to which they SHOULD be held, and it protects residents of California from having their rights callously violated by an increasingly authoritarian and expansive arm of the govt.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It seems bizarre to me to have employers be the pawns of what seems like a tug of war between various government agencies.
    It is absolutely bizarre.

    It should absolutely be within an employers right to demand a warrant before granting access to a worksite.
    It should also absolutely be within an employers right to NOT demand a warrant before granting access to a worksite.
    But what you're doing is granting access to the workers, who have every right to expect their privacy will be upheld by you while they work. It would be entirely unobjectionable, from a legal perspective, for them to get provisions like this law lays out put into the contract in negotiations. California law is now merely saying you can't waive their expectations for them just because immigrant labor doesn't do well in contract negotiations.

    The site is the employers site
    Now that's often not true either. Lots of employers are merely leasing their sites. And in point of fact, I think it is not irregular for lease/rental agreements to contain provisions as to which parties are legally allowed to grant access to the facilities of the property. Why is it so outlandish that it could similarly be an issue for labor (and hence government regulation of labor provisions)?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,724
    Honestly it just seems like an attempt to protect illegals from justice. California couldn't be more blatant about it if they tried.

    The solution should be to start punishing criminals who commit social security fraud with hard labor building a certain structure on our southern boarder...

  7. #7
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The re-verification prohibition isn't particularly strange. Employers are already prohibited from eg. re-verifying documentation that hasn't expired. Because the verification process involves the E-Verify system, re-verification risks bringing employees to the attention of federal authorities. Which employees do you think employers or managers would be most likely to subject to premature and unnecessary re-verification? Foreigners, brownies.
    What does this mean?

    I am required to maintain and verify certain documents* which I do on recruitment and initial training. In order to maintain my documents as part of my due diligence I go through them every 3-6 months. If I find a document that is going to expire within the next 3-6 months then I will action that at that point rather than waiting 3-6 months later and discovering I have an out of date expired document in my possession. Since I'm legally required to maintain in date documents then waiting until a document has expired would be too late.

    The only alternative is auditing on a daily basis rather than on a regular 3-6 month basis.

    * on site, nothing gets filed nationally or with the government but can be demanded to be seen by the Police, Council workers or other agents of the government without any forewarning - so I appreciate this is different to USA and an e-verify system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But what you're doing is granting access to the workers, who have every right to expect their privacy will be upheld by you while they work. It would be entirely unobjectionable, from a legal perspective, for them to get provisions like this law lays out put into the contract in negotiations. California law is now merely saying you can't waive their expectations for them just because immigrant labor doesn't do well in contract negotiations.
    It's never come up as an issue for me but there's nothing in my contracts that say anything about privacy from government agents. I don't see how co-operating with legal authorities by allowing them on the premises is waiving anything. Especially given in law there can be complications for not co-operating.
    Now that's often not true either. Lots of employers are merely leasing their sites. And in point of fact, I think it is not irregular for lease/rental agreements to contain provisions as to which parties are legally allowed to grant access to the facilities of the property. Why is it so outlandish that it could similarly be an issue for labor (and hence government regulation of labor provisions)?
    Lots may lease it, not all do, many own their own premises in which case it is theirs outright. I think it is outlandish to punish anyone for co-operating with the authorities, which is partly why that has not been the case before now [hence it being a new law being discussed].

    If Police officers come in doing their job and I co-operate them I don't expect to be punished for co-operating with the authorities. The authorities should sort this BS out between themselves and if one agency is over-reaching that should be for the courts to settle rather than punishing people who co-operate with the authorities in a perfectly ordinary manner.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #9
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,735
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    What does this mean?

    [...]

    * on site, nothing gets filed nationally or with the government but can be demanded to be seen by the Police, Council workers or other agents of the government without any forewarning - so I appreciate this is different to USA and an e-verify system.
    Yes, it is different from what you're doing.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  10. #10
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,735
    Just to be clear, the prohibition on re-verification, in this context, is not a major departure from existing federal law:

    https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/11...tary-practices

    You can re-verify employees whose work authorization you know is about to expire or be altered shortly, for example. You can set up automated reminders, esp. if you have a decent electronic system for maintaining these records, which you should. You can also set up audits in order to clearly limit them to appropriate employees and situations. There are several reasonable, legitimate exceptions: https://www.lawlogix.com/employers-p...e-i-9-squeeze/

    This is not an unreasonable or suspicious law. It protects legitimate workers. Some people may be upset by the fact that it also protects "illegals", but almost all laws already do that.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    Given that those who are being re-verified have presumably already been verified and are therefore legal - I fail to see how re-verifying either harms them or protects illegals. The only reason re-verification ought to change anything is if the original verification was false or if something has changed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #12
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,735
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Given that those who are being re-verified have presumably already been verified and are therefore legal - I fail to see how re-verifying either harms them or protects illegals. The only reason re-verification ought to change anything is if the original verification was false or if something has changed.
    No.

    Authorization isn't permanent. Allowing arbitrary re-verification will disproportionately enable the targeting of foreigners and other brownies in a discriminatory manner, even those who are legal residents authorized to work in the US.

    Your reasoning is no different from claiming that the innocent have nothing to fear from having the govt. violate their privacy, subject them to unjustified surveillance and searches etc.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    No.

    Authorization isn't permanent. Allowing arbitrary re-verification will disproportionately enable the targeting of foreigners and other brownies in a discriminatory manner, even those who are legal residents authorized to work in the US.

    Your reasoning is no different from claiming that the innocent have nothing to fear from having the govt. violate their privacy, subject them to unjustified surveillance and searches etc.
    Authorisation may not be permanent, which is all the more reason why in order to stay legal (hiring illegals is a crime, at least here) you need to maintain verification. It is a legal requirement that I have valid "proof of right to work in the UK" for all my employees and expired documents are invalid. This is something I have to do by law so can relate.

    However verification will give the date it is valid until and it is there until that date. If I take someone's ID and it says they have a visa that is valid until 31/3/2020 then while the authorisation may not be permanent it is legitimate until 31/3/2020.

    If someone re-verifies on 1/4/2020 then it will say they're not authorised unless the verification had been extended. However re-verifying on 1/4/2018 would simply say its verified. Doing so again on 1/7/18, 1/10/18, 1/01/19 etc and so on would simply say its verified each time. It is redundant and unnecessary but how does it affect or penalise anyone? Unless the temporary authorisation can be withdrawn prematurely and if that's the case then it ought to be all the more reason why you should reverify regularly and consistently.

    Oh and this isn't government privacy, since we're talking private businesses and since the person involved knows they will pass the authorisation every time. The closest I can think of is that I'm required to ask for ID before I serve alcohol to young people - I have a group of regular guys that are all 18/19 and have been coming in every Friday for that last six months. I ID them every single time they come in, even though I recognise them ... and every week someone remarks that I've seen their ID before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #14
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,629
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It's never come up as an issue for me but there's nothing in my contracts that say anything about privacy from government agents. I don't see how co-operating with legal authorities by allowing them on the premises is waiving anything. Especially given in law there can be complications for not co-operating.
    Lots may lease it, not all do, many own their own premises in which case it is theirs outright. I think it is outlandish to punish anyone for co-operating with the authorities, which is partly why that has not been the case before now [hence it being a new law being discussed].

    If Police officers come in doing their job and I co-operate them I don't expect to be punished for co-operating with the authorities. The authorities should sort this BS out between themselves and if one agency is over-reaching that should be for the courts to settle rather than punishing people who co-operate with the authorities in a perfectly ordinary manner.
    It is outlandish to threaten punishment for people who waive the fullest exercise of their rights. That's the sort of thing that happens when you have competing government authorities differing on punitive policies like this though. SOMEONE is threatened punishment either way.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It is outlandish to threaten punishment for people who waive the fullest exercise of their rights. That's the sort of thing that happens when you have competing government authorities differing on punitive policies like this though. SOMEONE is threatened punishment either way.
    Indeed and it is totally outrageous. Someone should get a grip [probably only the courts can sort out this mess now] and the various authorities should get their shit together.

    Punishing people and playing politics with their personal lives or businesses is pathetic. People and companies aren't pawns for politicians ego trips.

    I'm starting to think separation of powers is not all its cracked up to be. When you have two competing authorities acting authoritarian in opposite extremes then how is anyone supposed to get by?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Honestly it just seems like an attempt to protect illegals from justice. California couldn't be more blatant about it if they tried.

    The solution should be to start punishing criminals who commit social security fraud with hard labor building a certain structure on our southern boarder...
    Really? And within an employment process that's full of legal loopholes, you'd like to start by criminalizing the workers first?

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Really? And within an employment process that's full of legal loopholes, you'd like to start by criminalizing the workers first?
    For committing social security fraud? Yes.

  18. #18
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    For committing social security fraud? Yes.
    Why not prosecute the employers first? They do all the credit checks and security clearances up front. They're the ones that deduct SS taxes and workman's compensation insurance from paychecks. They have the legal teams.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Why not prosecute the employers first? They do all the credit checks and security clearances up front. They're the ones that deduct SS taxes and workman's compensation insurance from paychecks. They have the legal teams.
    Employers shouldn't be required to do background checks. While it is often done for professional positions it is an extra cost. A small franchise (say a family owned set of Arby's stores) shouldn't have to do anything beyond the basic SS number and see that it matches. If ID/SS don't match than sure put some onus on the company but 'legal teams' pssh not every job is going to do that kind of screening. What type of jobs do you think illegals are getting?

  20. #20
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,783
    I am not a lawyer and I do my own legal stuff with employees. If I need to pay for a lawyer that's bloody expensive. The idea that every employer is a large multinational or corporate with a team of lawyers ... I don't know where that's come from.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #21
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Honestly it just seems like an attempt to protect illegals from justice. California couldn't be more blatant about it if they tried.

    The solution should be to start punishing criminals who commit social security fraud with hard labor building a certain structure on our southern boarder...
    It's almost as if you only support state rights when those states are doing the kind of things you want them to do.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's almost as if you only support state rights when those states are doing the kind of things you want them to do.
    Noticed I didn't say CA doesn't have the right to do this. Instead I supported the federal government doing something else to penalize the behavior of the ones breaking the law. Getting a warrant due to fraud of federal government programs won't be difficult.

  23. #23
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,524
    You mean you support the federal government ignoring the express wishes of the states on issues of employment, which are clearly within the remit of state governments?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You mean you support the federal government ignoring the express wishes of the states on issues of employment, which are clearly within the remit of state governments?
    Bwhahahah are you actually suggesting that the federal government has no oversight over social security fraud and illegal immigration?

  25. #25
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,306
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    But what you're doing is granting access to the workers, who have every right to expect their privacy will be upheld by you while they work.
    I have no such expectation of privacy at the workplace, and assume I'm in public when at work. Otherwise I would come to work nude, and I was told to stop doing that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •