|
|
||||
|
March 27, 2002, 11:25PM Divided court limits rights of illegal
workers By PATTY REINERT Washington Bureau, WASHINGTON -- Illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as American workers when they are fired or mistreated in the workplace, a divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The 5-4 decision overturned a $67,000 back pay award that the National Labor Relations Board gave to Jose Castro, a Mexican national. Castro was illegally fired in 1989 for trying to organize a union at the California plant where he worked. He had gotten his job with Hoffman Plastic Compounds illegally, by using the birth certificate of a friend from Texas as proof of his eligibility to work in the United States. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the court's conservative majority, refused to allow the award "to an illegal alien for years of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned and for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud." Awarding the back pay "not only trivializes the immigration laws, it also condones and encourages future violations," wrote Rehnquist, who was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The decision is a defeat for the Bush administration, which had argued that such monetary penalties are needed to dissuade employers from running roughshod over the estimated 7 million illegal workers in the United States. Without the threat of penalties for mistreating workers, the administration argued, abusive employers have even more incentive to skirt laws and hire illegal immigrants instead of U.S. citizens. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed, noting in his dissent that all the relevant federal agencies, including the Justice Department, had told the court that the back pay award would not interfere with the implementation of U.S. immigration policy. "Rather, it reasonably helps to deter unlawful activity that both labor laws and immigration laws seek to prevent," wrote Breyer, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "The court does not deny that the employer in this case dismissed an employee for trying to organize a union -- a crude and obvious violation of the labor laws," Breyer said. He dismissed the majority's contention that the employer would not get off scot-free because it would be told to "cease and desist" and would be required to post a notice on workers' rights in the workplace. Those remedies aren't enough, Breyer said. The back pay remedy is needed, he said, because it "helps make labor law enforcement credible; it makes clear that violating the labor laws will not pay." Joe Vail, a law professor who runs the immigration clinic at the University of Houston Law Center, agreed with the dissenters. "Employers need and want these employees. They know very well they have no papers and they know they are vulnerable," Vail said. "To say that this ruling somehow upholds immigration law policies is totally wrong. Taking away the continued
on next column... |
continued... Divided court limits rights of illegal
workers By PATTY REINERT weapon of penalties makes it easier forabusive employers to keep bringing immigrants here to work and using them and treating them badly." Union leaders in Houston are planning to protest against the decision outside the Mickey Leland Federal Building this morning. Adriana Cadena, a Houston representative of the Service Employees International Union, the largest union within the AFL-CIO, said the ruling "sends a message to unscrupulous employers that they can get away with exploiting undocumented workers." "Hard-working, tax-paying immigrants contribute greatly to our economy, to our communities and to our culture, and they, like all workers, deserve a safe place to work free from harassment and fear," she said. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks tougher enforcement of immigration laws, also criticized the decision. Making illegal immigrants ineligible for back pay, he said, "makes them much more attractive to crooked employers." "This, in fact, exacerbates lack of control over our borders, which is ironic given the conservative court's ruling," he said. "But it strengthens the jobs magnet that draws illegals here instead of weakening it. Now employers know they can get away with" hiring illegals and mistreating them. "Tacking up an announcement on the lunchroom wall -- that's no punishment," he added. "Sixty-seven thousand dollars in back pay plus interest, that's punishment." Krikorian said he would favor a remedy that removes the illegal worker from the United States. "The remedy should not include giving him his job back because he's not supposed to be here in the first place," Krikorian said. "But back pay and fines to enforce labor protections are appropriate." But another immigration opponent, Michael Hethmon with Washington's Federation for American Immigration Reform, praised the decision. He predicted the majority's strong language should give a boost to U.S. immigration law and could be used to bolster other cases involving immigrants, including workplace discrimination proceedings. "It's quite reasonable to say the Supreme Court would question any remedial action by any remedial body," Hethmon said. "This is a great case. It says in the most definitive, clear language possible, `What part of illegal alien don't you understand?' " Hethmon said the employer in this case "did not have particularly clean hands" and should be punished for violated federal labor laws. "But you can't go then and reward the illegal alien because of the employer's unlawful deed," he said. "Both of these parties are involved in unlawful acts. That is the nature of employing illegal aliens." Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
|
March 30, 2002, 12:36AM Rally demands city not cross off rights of illegal laborers By EDWARD HEGSTROM Bearing their own cross, local religious
leaders gathered in front of Houston City Hall on Good Friday to call for
increasing protection of undocumented immigrant workers -- including the
possibility of opening a new labor center in Spring Branch. The Catholic and
Protestant representatives said guaranteeing the rights of illegal immigrant
workers locally has become particularly important in the wake of a Supreme
Court ruling that may limit such protections on the federal level. The leaders
called on the city to step up education efforts to protect immigrant workers.
They also announced a proposal to build more labor centers designed to help
organize day laborers who would otherwise gather on street corners. A
city-sponsored day-labor site for mostly undocumented workers has already
opened along Chimney Rock in southwest Houston. The site matches workers with
employers, guarantees a $7 hourly minimum wage and provides the workers some
limited educational opportunities. "We believe this type of center should
be replicated throughout the Houston area," said Bob Fleming, a
representative of Associated Catholic Charities. Fleming and other leaders
spoke in front of a large cross brought to the steps of City Hall.
Representatives of The Metropolitan Organization, a politically active
coalition of about 50 congregations, have already met with city officials
about the possibility of putting a day-labor center near Hadden Park, at Long
Point and Witte. City Councilman Bruce Tatro, who represents the area, says he
is receptive to the idea. "I'm open in the sense that it may be a
benefit," Tatro said in a telephone interview after the press conference.
The councilman said the presence of the workers on the street corners has
become a security concern. But he cautioned that it remains to be seen whether
any city funds would be used. The city spent $100,000 in community-development
block grants for the current center, known as the Oscar Romero Day Labor
Center. With its extreme contrasts of wealth and poverty, Spring Branch
traditionally has been known as a flash point for controversy over the influx
of new immigrants. TMO representatives say they are aware of this history, but
they also say they have found people in the neighborhood are generally
receptive to the proposed day-labor site. "We feel very confident that as
a community we can find a solution," said Franklin Olson, with Memorial
Drive United Methodist Church, who is leading the effort to find a location
for the workers. But conservatives said they would oppose any new work site
for illegal immigrants, particularly if it receives city funding. "I
think that amounts to a government agency recognizing criminal activity,"
said Joe Ray Blalack, a representative of the Republican Immigration Forum.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that an illegal immigrant improperly
fired from his job for union activity is not entitled to the same back pay
that would normally be accorded a legal resident. Immigrant activists
immediately decried the decision as a step backward. "This opens the door
to exploitation," said Teodoro Aguiluz of the Central American Resource
Center. Aguiluz said the decision was part of a move toward "slavery in
modern times." But some leaders now believe the Supreme Court decision
may have focused so narrowly on the issue of back pay in union-organizing
disputes that it may not have any direct impact on other areas of labor rights
for undocumented workers. Local representatives of the Department of Labor
have teamed up with the Mexican Consulate in Houston to ensure that immigrant
workers are paid for work they have done and kept safe on work sites. In an
e-mail widely circulated among immigrant activists, a local Department of
Labor representative said she did not think the Supreme Court decision would
affect their work ensuring that illegal workers are paid. "That (Supreme
Court) decision has become a lightning rod, but hopefully it won't affect too
many people," said Joe Higgs of TMO. |
||