Hey Dipy: Here is something AMERICA SHOULD BE PROUD OF. Do you think illegal immigrants deserve some basic rights, YES or NO?
U.S. to Expand Labor Rights to Cover Illegal Immigrants
search.nytimes.com
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced
that it will extend broad anti-discrimination rights to illegal
immigrants for the first time, a policy that some critics said could be hard
to enforce and others contended would encourage illegal immigration.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced this week
that it would for the first time extend broad anti-discrimination rights to
workers who are illegal immigrants, a policy that some lawyers said might
be hard to enforce because immigrants might fear deportation if they
assert these rights.
The E.E.O.C. said Tuesday that illegal immigrants who are dismissed or
discriminated against because of their race, sex, age or religion should
enjoy the same remedies as legal workers -- back pay, punitive damages
and even reinstatement, but reinstatement coming only if they have first
obtained legal work papers.
The new policy faces several enforcement problems, among them that
illegal aliens might be too scared to file discrimination complaints with the
E.E.O.C. and are likely to have difficulty obtaining official work
documents.
The E.E.O.C. said it issued the new policy because it wanted to ensure
that employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens were not free to
discriminate against them without facing any penalties.
But critics of the Clinton administration's immigration policies attacked
the decision, insisting that extending remedies like reinstatement and back
pay to illegal immigrants would only encourage more such immigrants to
enter the United States.
"This whole policy is creating an atmosphere hostile to removing illegal
immigrants from the labor force," said Daniel Stein, executive director of
the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based
group pushing for stricter limits on immigration. "The E.E.O.C. is putting
itself in the position of a mother superior seeking to gather and protect
the undocumented flock."
E.E.O.C. Chairwoman Ida Castro asserted that without the policy
announced Tuesday, unscrupulous employers would feel encouraged to
hire illegal aliens with an eye to exploiting them. She said the policy would
discourage such discrimination and exploitation by guaranteeing illegal
aliens the same anti-discrimination protections as U.S. citizens and
resident aliens.
Ms. Castro said, "If you let employers just breach civil rights
requirements for a group of workers such as undocumented workers,
then you're indirectly supporting the hiring of this group and the violation
of our laws."
Several critics suggested that the Clinton administration pushed the
E.E.O.C. to embrace this new policy as a way to win support for Vice
President Al Gore's presidential campaign among three important
Democratic constituencies: labor unions, minorities and immigrants.
The A.F.L.-C.I.O., which endorsed Gore two weeks ago, has pushed
hard for the E.E.O.C. to adopt this policy, arguing that failure to enforce
discrimination laws for illegal aliens encouraged employers to hire them
and undercut workplace conditions for all workers.
Administration and E.E.O.C. officials said politics had nothing to do with
the new E.E.O.C. policy.
A.F.L.-C.I.O. general counsel John Hiatt said the labor federation has
long pushed for this policy partly because of concerns that failing to crack
down on discrimination against illegal workers can create an atmosphere
that allows discrimination of documented workers.
"They are a very welcome set of guidelines," Hiatt said. "The exploitation
of undocumented workers lowers wages, benefits and conditions for
documented workers.
The new policy continues a trend in which the federal government has
extended more and more protections to illegal immigrants. They are
covered by minimum-wage and occupational-safety laws. And The
National Labor Relations Board has ruled that employers who knowingly
hire illegal aliens are prohibited from dismissing them if they support
unionization.
Attracted in part by contingency fees and attorneys fees, some lawyers
have moved aggressively to file suits charging that employers have
violated minimum wage laws for undocumented workers. Some business
organizations voiced fears that lawyers might seek to do the same in filing
discrimination claims on behalf of illegal aliens.
One fear that some business executives expressed is that if they hire
illegal aliens without knowing of their undocumented status and later
dismiss those workers upon learning of that status, the angered workers
might file discrimination suits, charging that they were fired because of
their race or sex.
E.E.O.C. officials said they adopted the new policy after encountering
what they said were horrific examples of discrimination against illegal
immigrants.
These officials described one illegal immigrant who was dismissed after
refusing to provide sexual favors to her boss. E.E.O.C. officials also
described a group of Vietnamese workers who were illegally segregated
from other workers on a fishing vessel. These officials also described
instances in which managers retaliated against illegal aliens by dismissing
them after they sought to report racial discrimination or sexual
harassment.
"Unauthorized workers are especially vulnerable to abuse and
exploitation," Ms. Castro said. "It is imperative for employers to fully
understand that discrimination against this class of employees will not be
tolerated."
Seeking to avoid a clash with the nation's immigration laws, the E.E.O.C.
said it would push for reinstatement for illegal aliens who had been
discriminated against only when those aliens have first obtained papers
authorizing them to work in the United States. But the E.E.O.C. said it
would recommend back pay whether or not the immigrants had working
papers.
E.E.O.C. officials said the new policy would help not just illegal aliens,
but also their co-workers.
"If employers were not held responsible for discriminating against
unauthorized workers, it would create an incentive for unscrupulous
employers to employ and exploit these workers," the commission said. "It
would also harm authorized workers who might be denied these jobs or
be subjected to a workplace which tolerated discrimination."
Illegal immigration has been a controversial issue in recent decades, as
many Americans insist that illegal aliens are an unwanted public charge,
while others say they are hard workers who contribute to the economy.
Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum,
a Washington-based group that promotes immigrants' rights, praised the
E.E.O.C., saying, "This new policy says that if you're working, we're not
gong to be complicit in giving employers an open door to using your
illegal status to hit workers over the head with discriminations."
But Sharry acknowledged that many illegal aliens might be too timid to
file discrimination charges.
Sharry said the new policy was bound to stir controversy because it pits
two fundamental concerns against each other: the desire to limit illegal
immigrations and the desire to combat discrimination on the basis of race,
sex, age or religion.
"There's a mismatch between the debate and the reality," he said. "Lots
of workers who some people say are criminals because they entered
illegally are actually hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who are
working hard to make a better lives for themselves."
In 1994, in one of the strongest backlashes against illegal immigration,
Californians passed a proposition that barred state money for education,
health care or other services for illegal aliens. A U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles has partially enjoined enforcement of the proposition.
John Findley, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, one of the
initiative's main sponsors, criticized the E.E.O.C.'s new policy.
"To me it should be a nonstarter because an illegal alien by definition is in
the country unlawfully," he said. 'That individual has no right to the job in
question. To force an employer to rehire an individual with back pay and
subject the employers to sanctions seems to me ridiculous." |
