.jpg)
[Note: Press Presentation By Howard P. Willens, Esq.]
January 26, 2008
SUMMARY OF COMMONWEALTH POSITION REGARDING
THE TRANSITION PROGRAM UNDER H.R. 3079
1. The provisions of H.R. 3079 relating to the transition program mandated by the legislation must be interpreted in light of their language, objective, and legislative history – including the earlier bills on the subject considered by the Senate in 1998-2000.
2. The consistent objective of these bills has been to establish a process for reducing the Commonwealth’s reliance on temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers and to require that the CNMI employ only U.S. citizens, freely associated state citizens, or workers admitted on an immigrant basis into the Commonwealth.
3. H.R. 3079 prohibits the CNMI from increasing the number of temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers in the Commonwealth (currently about 19,000) after the enactment of the legislation.
4. Nonimmigrant foreign workers lawfully working in the Commonwealth may remain to the conclusion of their contracts in place on the effective date of the transition program but no longer than two years after that date – which may be either one year or 18 months after the enactment of the legislation.
5. The transition period under the bill applies to all temporary nonimmigrant foreign workers in the CNMI unless otherwise entitled to be in the Commonwealth under one of the exceptions provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act for workers who enter under treaties with the United States, freely associated state citizens, or those covered by one of the many specialized provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (business visitors, exchange visitors, employees of international concerns, etc.) All foreign workers admitted in the Commonwealth’s 706K immigration category are temporary nonimmigrant workers who do not fall within any of the exceptions under the federal statute.
6. The permit system under the transition program therefore covers both the foreign workers currently in the CNMI and any person who may be issued an H visa during the transition period under the provisions of H.R. 3079.
7. H.R. 3079 permits an alien to apply for a H-1B or H-2B visa to enter the CNMI during the transition period without regard to the national caps on the numbers of such visas. Guam is given an exemption from these caps of indefinite duration. With respect to the Commonwealth, the exemption from the national caps does not authorize the admission of nonimmigrant foreign workers into the CNMI during the transition period outside of the permit system implemented by the federal officials under H.R. 3079.
8. H.R. 3079 eliminated the three alternative means for supplementing the local workforce of US and freely associated citizens contained in earlier versions of the bill – family sponsored immigrants, employment based immigrants, and a “grandfather” provision for long term foreign workers in the Commonwealth.
9. Under the permit system, each temporary nonimmigrant foreign worker employed in the CNMI must fill a position for which his or her employer has obtained a permit from the federal officials.
10. The federal officials are given broad discretion for developing and implementing the permit system under H.R. 3079. This will necessarily involve decisions affecting industries (and companies within industries) differently – with increasingly intense competition for the reduced number of foreign workers available each year under the transition program.
11. According to H.R. 3079, the permit system must operate to reduce the number of permits – and therefore the number of nonimmigrant foreign workers – in the CNMI to ZERO by the end of 2013. This very short time for reaching zero is four years earlier than the deadline provided in any earlier version of the legislation.
12. The bill does provide for one or more extensions – of up to five years – of the transition period. The Secretary of Labor is given the authority to grant such an extension after consultation with other federal officials and the Commonwealth. Such extensions are wholly within the discretion of the federal officials and no assumptions can be responsibly made as to when an extension might be requested or granted. Extensions would still require a reduction to zero but would probably allow smaller reductions each year during the extended transition period.
13. On the effective date of the transition period H.R. 3079 preempts all CNMI immigration laws and most, if not all, of the Commonwealth’s labor laws. This will remove all employer and Commonwealth Government benefits for foreign workers in the CNMI.
14. The fees to be charged by federal officials administering the transition program are certain to be substantially higher than those currently charged under CNMI laws. H.R. 3079, if enacted, would deny the Commonwealth its right under the Covenant to seek the return (or cover over) of the immigration fees from the federal government.
Howard P. Willens
Special Legal Counsel
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
PL 15-108 Is Progress. Progress Is Incremental
Below is Senator Frica Pangelinan's Opinion piece on PL 15-108 which was published by the Saipan Tribune. Click here.
Opinion
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Notes From the Hill
'PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental.'
By Maria Frica T. Pangelinan
Special to the Saipan Tribune
These are the thoughts that evolved out of my research on Public Law 15-108 and ultimately motivated my support of its enactment. I felt it important to share with you as I believe that information is an essential component of constructive progress.
The dynamics of our labor market affect many, not just people in the Commonwealth. The families of citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals who live on the U.S. mainland and in home countries are influenced as well.
The original labor laws were created on the premise that certain foreign nationals would fill jobs that could not be filled by our resident population. There were two reasons. First, we felt that our small population would not be able to provide a large enough labor pool to fully supply the needs of the industries we were trying to attract. Second, we needed time to prepare ourselves with education, training, and experience, for full participation in the workforce. After 30-plus years, we are more than ready. Even so, we have been slow to acknowledge and address the “brain drain” of citizens leaving our islands. Our investment in the secondary and postsecondary education of ourselves and our young people is being lost as they migrate out of the Commonwealth. Some of our college graduates never even return from the mainland, simply entering the workforce there. We are about a half a generation behind in coordinating the provisions of our labor laws with these realities.
The authors of the bill took on a huge task. Not only were the old laws and regulations complex, they were flawed and fragmented. The original purpose of the Nonresident Worker Act had been lost in a morass of piecemeal amendments. There were loopholes and weaknesses that allowed abuses, not just by employers, but by employees as well. It was a thankless job, not likely to please everyone, and fraught with political and social risk. Nonetheless, led by Rep. Cinta Kiapat, they took on the task of reforming the entire Act, something that no legislators before had been willing to tackle. For this, they have my respect. They did their jobs.
The new law and the accompanying regulations are still complex. Laws that deal with the movement and employment of people across international borders deal with complex issues. That being said, the new law is more streamlined and organized than the old.
PL 15-108 does not address every issue I would have liked. The exit provision makes no allowance for foreign nationals who have lived and worked in the Commonwealth for many years, some with children who are U.S. citizens. Some have no home or family to return to in their home countries during the newly required exit period. Although the regulations provide an alternative exit period of 60 days for some foreign nationals employed by qualifying employers, I do not yet see a clear solution for this issue and it needs to be addressed.
I would also like to revisit the new medical insurance provision. CHC struggles under the burden of being owed millions of dollars for services rendered. This is not a problem created solely by non-payment of medical services for foreign nationals. There are others in the Commonwealth who do not have medical insurance. I would like to explore the possibility of expanding the role of the newly created insurance pool. Perhaps by eliminating self-insurance we could build a larger insurance pool, insuring CHC gets paid more often, an additional benefit for the entire Commonwealth. I am continuing to study this issue.
There is also the issue of foreign nationals who enter the Commonwealth under tourist visas and intend to work. Some of them know they are breaking the law, some do not. The screening procedure used by our Immigration officers at the point of entry should take this into account. At this point I do not know if the current procedures effectively identify these persons, or how the situation is handled. I plan to explore this with the Director of Immigration.
Over the years there has been an accumulation of claims, and court cases pointing to loopholes and weaknesses of the old law. Most people, businesses, and government employees, are honest, hardworking, and law abiding. However, some employers and employees have taken advantage of loopholes, or chosen to break or circumvent the law. Next are the hard lessons we have learned while administering the local labor and immigration laws. People have been taken advantage of and lives have fallen through the cracks. There were as many as 20,000 foreign nationals employed in the Commonwealth in 2007 and the number of tourists was almost 400,000. Only a small number of human trafficking cases occurred during that period. The fact remains, however, that each case is a tragedy for the victim and their families. Every loophole we close is progress toward ending this horrendous practice.
The authors of PL15-108 took these issues and more, into account, integrating input from the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Labor, the business community, private citizens, and many others.
Below is an overview of labor and related issues in the Commonwealth.
Labor Problem
1. A government with too many employees
2. Government revenues are shrinking
3. Average wages are higher in the public sector
4. Relatively high unemployment among residents
5. Highly skilled and educated citizens living on the mainland
6. Residents have problems finding private sector jobs
7. Poor working and living conditions of some foreign nationals
8. Human trafficking
9. Lack of health benefits for foreign nationals who are not workers
10. Abandoned and unpaid foreign nationals
11. CHC has difficulty getting paid for services provided
Solutions
1. Reduce the number of public employees
2. Reduce expenses (payroll), raise revenues
3. Equalize wages in the private and public sector
4. Increase local employment in the private sector
5. Increase employment opportunities in the private sector
6. Improve the system of identifying and matching qualified residents with private sector employment opportunities
7. Improve the inspection and enforcement power of DOL
8. Close loopholes in the foreign national labor laws
9. Mandatory health benefits
10. Improved bonding/increased enforcement by DOL
11. Mandatory medical insurance; disqualifying employers who do not pay medical bills for their foreign workers
PL 15-108 creates rewards for employers that exceed statutory standards and increases the severity of penalties for those, including government employees, who do not uphold the law. The new law is said by some to increase the administrative burden on local businesses. Yes, it does. Hiring a new foreign national is now a special and final option for an employer, and only when it is a documented certainty that no citizen, permanent resident, or foreign national already in the Commonwealth is willing and able to fill the position. This is the same premise on which the Federal guest worker programs are based; to augment the resident workforce, not displace it.
Our entire labor market is shrinking. Payroll is usually the largest expense of a business. The private sector has always adjusted to the economy, increasing and decreasing the number of employees based on demand.
Now, whether by design or by necessity, public sector employment is decreasing also. Payroll is the largest expense of the government as well. Reducing the number of employees while controlling the wages of those who remain must be part of the government's path to solvency. Some who leave the government will retire, some will go off island for employment, and some will depend on social services and family for a means of support. However, many will be searching for private sector employment. We must now work even harder to connect our resident work force with the available jobs.
Part of the solution is to improve the process by which we identify and target career opportunities in the private sector for citizens and residents of the CNMI. The faulty stereotype of all private sector jobs offering only minimum wage is challenged by a study recently completed by the Office of the Public Auditor. During a twelve month period ending August 2006, over 800 nonresident permits were issued for positions that pay over $10 per hour. Many of these positions require the same skills and experience as public sector jobs. It has been reported that some of these positions are protected by a treaty provision and are not available to citizens and permanent residents. I will work with the OPA to verify these reports.
The report is available at: http://www.opacnmi.com/reports/053007%20Jobs%20Study%20Committee%20Final%20Report.pdf
High unemployment among our residents as well as losing them to mainland life is unreasonable in light of the findings of the OPA's job study. Actively recruiting qualified residents for positions should be a priority for private sector businesses.
Employers certainly recognize that by hiring citizens and permanent residents, they are keeping money circulating in the economy that would otherwise be lost to foreign countries in the form of remittances. Keeping these dollars in the Commonwealth takes advantage of the multiplier effect in our economy and this benefits everyone.
Change always causes angst and uncertainty. Some say that PL 15-108 is pointless, as it is soon to be overridden by federal immigration statutes. I respectfully disagree. We have identified problems with our labor laws. We legislators have a duty to correct them. "If “federalization” comes, in its current form, it will not become effective for a year after the bill is signed into law. At a minimum, we have a year during which we continue to be directly accountable for how we deal with identified problems. As our great American hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The time is always right to do the right thing”.
Does PL 15-108 solve all of our labor problems? No. There are larger economic factors, some global, that no law can fix. Our labor market is smaller than in the past and there will be fewer foreign nationals in the Commonwealth, but those that are will enjoy an improved quality of life because of PL 15-108.
PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental. I will continue to monitor the implementation, and work to address the issues I have identified, as well as others that may arise.
(Maria Frica Pangelinan is a senator in the 16th Legislature.)
Opinion
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Notes From the Hill
'PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental.'
By Maria Frica T. Pangelinan
Special to the Saipan Tribune
These are the thoughts that evolved out of my research on Public Law 15-108 and ultimately motivated my support of its enactment. I felt it important to share with you as I believe that information is an essential component of constructive progress.
The dynamics of our labor market affect many, not just people in the Commonwealth. The families of citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals who live on the U.S. mainland and in home countries are influenced as well.
The original labor laws were created on the premise that certain foreign nationals would fill jobs that could not be filled by our resident population. There were two reasons. First, we felt that our small population would not be able to provide a large enough labor pool to fully supply the needs of the industries we were trying to attract. Second, we needed time to prepare ourselves with education, training, and experience, for full participation in the workforce. After 30-plus years, we are more than ready. Even so, we have been slow to acknowledge and address the “brain drain” of citizens leaving our islands. Our investment in the secondary and postsecondary education of ourselves and our young people is being lost as they migrate out of the Commonwealth. Some of our college graduates never even return from the mainland, simply entering the workforce there. We are about a half a generation behind in coordinating the provisions of our labor laws with these realities.
The authors of the bill took on a huge task. Not only were the old laws and regulations complex, they were flawed and fragmented. The original purpose of the Nonresident Worker Act had been lost in a morass of piecemeal amendments. There were loopholes and weaknesses that allowed abuses, not just by employers, but by employees as well. It was a thankless job, not likely to please everyone, and fraught with political and social risk. Nonetheless, led by Rep. Cinta Kiapat, they took on the task of reforming the entire Act, something that no legislators before had been willing to tackle. For this, they have my respect. They did their jobs.
The new law and the accompanying regulations are still complex. Laws that deal with the movement and employment of people across international borders deal with complex issues. That being said, the new law is more streamlined and organized than the old.
PL 15-108 does not address every issue I would have liked. The exit provision makes no allowance for foreign nationals who have lived and worked in the Commonwealth for many years, some with children who are U.S. citizens. Some have no home or family to return to in their home countries during the newly required exit period. Although the regulations provide an alternative exit period of 60 days for some foreign nationals employed by qualifying employers, I do not yet see a clear solution for this issue and it needs to be addressed.
I would also like to revisit the new medical insurance provision. CHC struggles under the burden of being owed millions of dollars for services rendered. This is not a problem created solely by non-payment of medical services for foreign nationals. There are others in the Commonwealth who do not have medical insurance. I would like to explore the possibility of expanding the role of the newly created insurance pool. Perhaps by eliminating self-insurance we could build a larger insurance pool, insuring CHC gets paid more often, an additional benefit for the entire Commonwealth. I am continuing to study this issue.
There is also the issue of foreign nationals who enter the Commonwealth under tourist visas and intend to work. Some of them know they are breaking the law, some do not. The screening procedure used by our Immigration officers at the point of entry should take this into account. At this point I do not know if the current procedures effectively identify these persons, or how the situation is handled. I plan to explore this with the Director of Immigration.
Over the years there has been an accumulation of claims, and court cases pointing to loopholes and weaknesses of the old law. Most people, businesses, and government employees, are honest, hardworking, and law abiding. However, some employers and employees have taken advantage of loopholes, or chosen to break or circumvent the law. Next are the hard lessons we have learned while administering the local labor and immigration laws. People have been taken advantage of and lives have fallen through the cracks. There were as many as 20,000 foreign nationals employed in the Commonwealth in 2007 and the number of tourists was almost 400,000. Only a small number of human trafficking cases occurred during that period. The fact remains, however, that each case is a tragedy for the victim and their families. Every loophole we close is progress toward ending this horrendous practice.
The authors of PL15-108 took these issues and more, into account, integrating input from the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Labor, the business community, private citizens, and many others.
Below is an overview of labor and related issues in the Commonwealth.
Labor Problem
1. A government with too many employees
2. Government revenues are shrinking
3. Average wages are higher in the public sector
4. Relatively high unemployment among residents
5. Highly skilled and educated citizens living on the mainland
6. Residents have problems finding private sector jobs
7. Poor working and living conditions of some foreign nationals
8. Human trafficking
9. Lack of health benefits for foreign nationals who are not workers
10. Abandoned and unpaid foreign nationals
11. CHC has difficulty getting paid for services provided
Solutions
1. Reduce the number of public employees
2. Reduce expenses (payroll), raise revenues
3. Equalize wages in the private and public sector
4. Increase local employment in the private sector
5. Increase employment opportunities in the private sector
6. Improve the system of identifying and matching qualified residents with private sector employment opportunities
7. Improve the inspection and enforcement power of DOL
8. Close loopholes in the foreign national labor laws
9. Mandatory health benefits
10. Improved bonding/increased enforcement by DOL
11. Mandatory medical insurance; disqualifying employers who do not pay medical bills for their foreign workers
PL 15-108 creates rewards for employers that exceed statutory standards and increases the severity of penalties for those, including government employees, who do not uphold the law. The new law is said by some to increase the administrative burden on local businesses. Yes, it does. Hiring a new foreign national is now a special and final option for an employer, and only when it is a documented certainty that no citizen, permanent resident, or foreign national already in the Commonwealth is willing and able to fill the position. This is the same premise on which the Federal guest worker programs are based; to augment the resident workforce, not displace it.
Our entire labor market is shrinking. Payroll is usually the largest expense of a business. The private sector has always adjusted to the economy, increasing and decreasing the number of employees based on demand.
Now, whether by design or by necessity, public sector employment is decreasing also. Payroll is the largest expense of the government as well. Reducing the number of employees while controlling the wages of those who remain must be part of the government's path to solvency. Some who leave the government will retire, some will go off island for employment, and some will depend on social services and family for a means of support. However, many will be searching for private sector employment. We must now work even harder to connect our resident work force with the available jobs.
Part of the solution is to improve the process by which we identify and target career opportunities in the private sector for citizens and residents of the CNMI. The faulty stereotype of all private sector jobs offering only minimum wage is challenged by a study recently completed by the Office of the Public Auditor. During a twelve month period ending August 2006, over 800 nonresident permits were issued for positions that pay over $10 per hour. Many of these positions require the same skills and experience as public sector jobs. It has been reported that some of these positions are protected by a treaty provision and are not available to citizens and permanent residents. I will work with the OPA to verify these reports.
The report is available at: http://www.opacnmi.com/reports/053007%20Jobs%20Study%20Committee%20Final%20Report.pdf
High unemployment among our residents as well as losing them to mainland life is unreasonable in light of the findings of the OPA's job study. Actively recruiting qualified residents for positions should be a priority for private sector businesses.
Employers certainly recognize that by hiring citizens and permanent residents, they are keeping money circulating in the economy that would otherwise be lost to foreign countries in the form of remittances. Keeping these dollars in the Commonwealth takes advantage of the multiplier effect in our economy and this benefits everyone.
Change always causes angst and uncertainty. Some say that PL 15-108 is pointless, as it is soon to be overridden by federal immigration statutes. I respectfully disagree. We have identified problems with our labor laws. We legislators have a duty to correct them. "If “federalization” comes, in its current form, it will not become effective for a year after the bill is signed into law. At a minimum, we have a year during which we continue to be directly accountable for how we deal with identified problems. As our great American hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The time is always right to do the right thing”.
Does PL 15-108 solve all of our labor problems? No. There are larger economic factors, some global, that no law can fix. Our labor market is smaller than in the past and there will be fewer foreign nationals in the Commonwealth, but those that are will enjoy an improved quality of life because of PL 15-108.
PL 15-108 is progress. Progress is incremental. I will continue to monitor the implementation, and work to address the issues I have identified, as well as others that may arise.
(Maria Frica Pangelinan is a senator in the 16th Legislature.)
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Tribune Publishes My Response To Hodges
Saturday January 19, 2008
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hodges' distortions are shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear: EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A. says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me, where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges’ comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call “cancellation of removal” but the foreign worker will have to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles), decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there, however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on Feb. 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for “federalization” which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that “federalization” would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hodges' distortions are shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear: EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A. says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me, where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges’ comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call “cancellation of removal” but the foreign worker will have to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles), decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there, however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on Feb. 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for “federalization” which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that “federalization” would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Friday, January 18, 2008
Hodges' Shameful Distortions
The following letter to the editor from Ron Hodges appears in this Friday, January 18, 2008, edition of the Marianas Variety.
Letter to the editor: Chamberonomics XXX…my comments on P.L. 15-108
P.L. 15-108 is the Northern Marianas Islands equivalent of Adolph Hitler's "final solution." Hitler originally sought to enslave persons of color, predominately Jewish, to provide the Third Reich with a free factory and domestic labor force. When his conquests began to crumble, he ordered implementation of the "final solution," or elimination of undesirables, as though it was his master plan from the beginning.
Big business here wants to save money by not paying back wages or settling labor claims and deport guest workers to P.I. and China without due process. Our business leaders do not want federalization or P.L. 15-108, so we can only assume they want to keep the status quo of servitude. Our guest workers here have not been properly represented. Lawyers refuse to represent them, with few exceptions, due to financial conflicts of interest and the fact our guest workers are poor and unable to pay legal expenses. Our judges and politicians have not represented them properly because guest workers are disenfranchised and do not vote.
How could our community justify enforcing such a program of racism and shame? We must defend U.S. minor citizens from being deported to places where children have half the life expectancy of the U.S . mainland and regularly die from lack of basic medical care. One man has burned himself to death at the Labor Department to heighten awareness of this horrific situation, our community marched against this law in unprecedented numbers, and the two authors of this bill were defeated by primarily indigenous voters, so what else must the people do to stop this law?
"There are unjust laws just as there are unjust men" — MK Gandhi.
The U.S. should improve the status of guest workers here. Some guest workers would vacate the impoverished commonwealth, which would help to alleviate our labor glut and unemployment debacle. This action by the U.S. alone would force big business here to increase their numbers of local employees, which means more jobs for young indigenous residents here. The "chamber" cringes at the thought of bearing this retraining expense, but in my opinion, they can do business here or not. I think hotels here are slave driving organizations that pay third world wages while charging tourists top dollar prices. If that greedy group doesn't want to retrain a young local work force, then good riddance.
When my wife was 12 years old, her brother contracted measles. His conditioned worsened. Lacking adequate medical care, Avilino Villar Jr. died at the tender age of seven years old. Sadly, this was not a newsworthy event in the Philippines, but a daily fact of life. Sending one American citizen child to the third world is depraved indifference to the welfare of a minor. I am asking the U.S. Congress to act and prevent such a disgrace from happening.
RON HODGES
Puerto Rico, Saipan
**************
The following is my response to Hodges which I've sent in to both papers to print.
Letter to the Editor: Hodges' Distortions Are Shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear – EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me – where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges' comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call "cancellation of removal" but the foreign worker will have to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles) decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on February 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for "federalization" which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that "federalization" would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Letter to the editor: Chamberonomics XXX…my comments on P.L. 15-108
P.L. 15-108 is the Northern Marianas Islands equivalent of Adolph Hitler's "final solution." Hitler originally sought to enslave persons of color, predominately Jewish, to provide the Third Reich with a free factory and domestic labor force. When his conquests began to crumble, he ordered implementation of the "final solution," or elimination of undesirables, as though it was his master plan from the beginning.
Big business here wants to save money by not paying back wages or settling labor claims and deport guest workers to P.I. and China without due process. Our business leaders do not want federalization or P.L. 15-108, so we can only assume they want to keep the status quo of servitude. Our guest workers here have not been properly represented. Lawyers refuse to represent them, with few exceptions, due to financial conflicts of interest and the fact our guest workers are poor and unable to pay legal expenses. Our judges and politicians have not represented them properly because guest workers are disenfranchised and do not vote.
How could our community justify enforcing such a program of racism and shame? We must defend U.S. minor citizens from being deported to places where children have half the life expectancy of the U.S . mainland and regularly die from lack of basic medical care. One man has burned himself to death at the Labor Department to heighten awareness of this horrific situation, our community marched against this law in unprecedented numbers, and the two authors of this bill were defeated by primarily indigenous voters, so what else must the people do to stop this law?
"There are unjust laws just as there are unjust men" — MK Gandhi.
The U.S. should improve the status of guest workers here. Some guest workers would vacate the impoverished commonwealth, which would help to alleviate our labor glut and unemployment debacle. This action by the U.S. alone would force big business here to increase their numbers of local employees, which means more jobs for young indigenous residents here. The "chamber" cringes at the thought of bearing this retraining expense, but in my opinion, they can do business here or not. I think hotels here are slave driving organizations that pay third world wages while charging tourists top dollar prices. If that greedy group doesn't want to retrain a young local work force, then good riddance.
When my wife was 12 years old, her brother contracted measles. His conditioned worsened. Lacking adequate medical care, Avilino Villar Jr. died at the tender age of seven years old. Sadly, this was not a newsworthy event in the Philippines, but a daily fact of life. Sending one American citizen child to the third world is depraved indifference to the welfare of a minor. I am asking the U.S. Congress to act and prevent such a disgrace from happening.
RON HODGES
Puerto Rico, Saipan
**************
The following is my response to Hodges which I've sent in to both papers to print.
Letter to the Editor: Hodges' Distortions Are Shameful
H.R. 3079, the federalization bill now pending in the U.S. Senate, does indeed deport every single foreign worker from the Commonwealth. That bill is awaiting action by a Senate that doesn't know much about the Commonwealth and, for that reason, may pass the bill. Let's make this clear – EVERY FOREIGN WORKER IN THE COMMONWEALTH WILL BE DEPORTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF PASSAGE OF THE FEDERALIZATION BILL. There are no exceptions. It is possible, as Pete A says, that there will be an extension of another five years. But the Marianas will have no say in that. It is the intent of the federalization bill, and those like Mr. Hodges who support it, to deport every single foreign worker, bar none, from the Marianas.
The new Commonwealth labor law, P.L. 15-108, welcomes foreign workers, as the Commonwealth always has, and improves their working conditions and protections to a standard virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. Tell me – where in the world do foreign workers get guaranteed medical coverage? Nowhere. And where in the world do foreign workers get bonded protection that their wages will be paid? Nowhere. One could go on and on. Mr. Hodges' comparison to Hitler is despicable!
And let's look at the treatment of minors. Mr. Hodges is once again not only wrong, but so terribly wrong that one has to conclude his efforts are deliberate propaganda to slander the U.S. citizens who are of Chamorro and Carolinian heritage. What do you suppose Mr. Hodges is doing in the classroom? Maybe we need parent monitors in his classroom to be sure nothing like this unfounded hateful propaganda is going on there.
Here's the deal. Under H.R. 3079, the federalization law, when all foreign workers are deported, all U.S. citizen children will likely go with them unless they have U.S. citizen or permanent relative residents in the U.S. somewhere. Under U.S. law, when a foreign worker is forced to leave, he or she may petition the U.S. immigration officials for what they call "cancellation of removal" but the foreign worker will have to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen son or daughter. It is very difficult to meet this standard. (See, for example, the decision in In re Ariadna Gonzalez Recinas, et al., Respondent, file A75 696 573 (Los Angeles) decided Sept. 19, 2002, by the Board of Immigration Appeals.) If the foreign worker has any relatives or any resources in their home country, or any capacity to earn a living there however small, the U.S. will not allow them to stay, no matter what hardship may occur to their U.S. citizen children from the move to the home country.
Under PL 15-108, the Commonwealth labor law, foreign workers will be required to leave the Commonwealth only for 60 days, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a qualifying employer and for six months, once every three years, if the foreign worker is an employee of a non-qualifying employer. If a foreign worker meets this periodic exit requirement (perhaps during the children's summer school vacation), the foreign worker can remain in the Commonwealth for as long as they are employed.
The new labor law is now in effect. I urge Mr. Hodges to take the time to read it, as he has obviously not done. The regulations under the new law will come into effect on February 1, 2008. Similarly, I urge Mr. Hodges to read the regulations as they apply to the periodic exit. Anyone can see that the Commonwealth law is quite generous, especially compared to U.S. law. Nothing in PL 15-108 deprives any foreign worker of any aspect of belonging in the community. That is certainly more than one can say for "federalization" which has, from the beginning, divided the community, pitted foreign workers against U.S. citizens, and generally aroused negative feelings on both sides. Shame on Mr. Hodges and equal shame on federal officials who told foreign workers that "federalization" would benefit them.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Author of PL 15-108
Monday, December 31, 2007
Final Message of 2007
To All My Friends and Family From Near and Afar, and, of course, to my Beautify CNMI Families--
May you all be blessed with great health, hapiness, and prosperity in 2008. Thank you all for bringing many, many blessings into my life and for making 2007 a wonderful year for me. As these final minutes of 2007 tick down, I would like to take this moment to wish each and every single one of you a . . .
HAVE A SAFE ONE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE AT A MINUTE PAST MIDNIGHT. WHY? BECAUSE I LOVE YOU ALL.
May you all be blessed with great health, hapiness, and prosperity in 2008. Thank you all for bringing many, many blessings into my life and for making 2007 a wonderful year for me. As these final minutes of 2007 tick down, I would like to take this moment to wish each and every single one of you a . . .
HAVE A SAFE ONE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE AT A MINUTE PAST MIDNIGHT. WHY? BECAUSE I LOVE YOU ALL.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Appearance on the John Oliver Gonzales Show & 360 Restaurant
LAST SHOW OF THE YEAR. The final showing of John Oliver Gonzales' show for 2007 which featured House Representative Cinta Kaipat and Senator Maria (Frica) Pangelinan aired on December 26, 2007. The topic was the Commonwealth Employment Act (Public Law 15-108). Replays of the December 26 Gonzales show can be seen on Saturday, December 29, and Wednesday, January 2, on Channel 2 at 7 p.m. (Photo Courtesy of Janet King)*************
After the show, we went up to the 360 Restaurant for dinner. This was the first time I've been up there. I've read Jeff's endorsement of the Restaurant, so I was curious to check it out myself. Brother Gus had the 360 burger; I had the super burger; my prima Janet King ordered the huge delicious salad; and Senator Frica ordered fish & chips. Jeff was right -- the food was good and plentiful and a couple of the owners stopped by our table for a chat. Given our topic on the John Gonzales Show, I was happy to hear from one of the owners that this Restaurant has made some genuine effort to recruit and employ local resident students to work as waitresses. According to the owner, they are doing just fine. Kudos to the management and staff of 360 Restaurant!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Setting The Record Straight
I wrote the following response to this post by Jeff Turbitt.
Jeff:
The December 12, 2007 edition of the Marianas Variety MISATTRIBUTED the following quote to me:
"THE principal sponsor of the bill that is now Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 says foreign workers who can't stand the local labor system can leave."
For the record, I NEVER made the above statement that was MISATTRIBUTED to me. Since I didn't have a tape recorder the day that I had this impromptu interview with Gemma -- though she did -- I'm going to relate to you what was said to the best of my recollection. And, by the way, if you want to verify any of this, why not ask Gemma for the taped interview? If she can't or won't give it to you, there were several other witnesses to this interview: Rep. Joseph Guerrero, Rep. Ramon Tebuteb, Toni Apatang from PTI, Nace from the Governor's Office, and other Legislative staff. These people were only a few feet from us and observed the whole heated discussion that went on.
Rep. Ray Tebuteb, who went to sit by Joe Rep. Guerrero, invited me over to speak with him right after we recessed from one of our sessions. As I walked up to him, I heard Rep. Guerrero telling Gemma that he wanted to wait and see how PL 15-108 works out before making any amendments to the Law. I'd heard and read several reports that Tina Sablan is talking to other lawmakers about repealing PL 15-108 once they get in, so I inferred that Gemma was asking Rep. Guerrero this very question when I joined Rep. Tebuteb. Her next response was "What about the six-month periodic exit?" I heard Rep. Guerrero say, "That's why we put in the 10%..." and as he was saying this, he looked over and motioned for me to jump into the conversation. I picked up where he left off. "Ten percent key employee exemption." "That's all?!" was Gemma's retort as she turned and headed towards me and Rep. Tebuteb to put the tape recorder down in front of us. "And you're going to send everyone home?!" She posed this question and successive questions to me in a challenging, confrontational way, rather than the normal tone she used to use to pose questions to me BEFORE I introduced HB 15-38, which has now become PL 15-108. I kept holding my hand up to indicate to her that I wanted her to stop interrupting me and to allow me to speak and finish what I was saying before she continued with her questions.
I said, "Gemma, you know that the 10% key employee provision is there because we don't want to jeaopardize the businesses. It was intended to make sure that the key employees of a business remained on the job to run the business with other employees while the employer staggers the periodic exit for the rest of the employees!" Her follow-up retort was: "With what skilled employees are you going to replace them with?!" I said to her, "Come on, Gemma! You mean to say that we're ALL unskilled and uneducated? And are you saying that we'll be unskilled and uneducated forever? How many educated and skilled locals have left these islands because they couldn't get jobs here?! ," I exclaimed.
"Have you seen the Public Auditor's Jobs Study Report?", I continued. This Report came out in May 2007. She claimed she saw the Report. I began discussing the Report when my staff handed me a copy of the actual Report. I read an excerpt from page 6 which talked about a one-year study that the OPA Jobs Study Group conducted. The one-year study that ended in August 2006 found that the Department of Labor renewed 800 job applications for "nonresident workers" who are making $10 an hour on up to $20+ an hour . Her retort was "Well, that's a small number. That's what... only 10% of the population!" I was stunned by her reply. I said to her, "Gemma, this may ONLY be 10% of the much larger Filipino population, but for the much smaller local population, that's A LOT of jobs!" I continued: "We have 400 government employees who will be losing their jobs at the end of December. I'm sure there's a lot of them who are skilled and educated!"
Gemma then said "The nonresidents came here and built the economy...." I said to her, "Let's go back and examine that statement. The foreign national workers were brought here to build our economy? Did you come to the CNMI to 'build our economy' or did you come to the CNMI because you needed jobs and we needed workers, so we opened up the opportunity to you? Now, I know some employers did not pay their workers, and that's unfortunate, but for most of the workers, did they not get paid for their work?"
I continued, "Ever since the enactment of the Nonresident Workers Act in 1983, the law established that we were to only bring in the workers to supplement our Labor workforce where needed -- not to replace our local workforce. We have that right to decide how many workers to bring in." Gemma continued to insist that the number of foreign workers displacing local workers from jobs is merely a small number. I vehemently disagreed with her and, at this point, Rep. Joe Guerrero jumped back into the conversation and said, "The number's not the important thing here. The important thing is that IT has already happened."
I then said to Gemma, "Do you think that we could go to the Philippines and do the same things that you all are doing over here?" She said "No; you can't compare the two places because they're different!" I said, "Why?" Her response was "Because they have a bigger workforce! It's a different situation there."
"You know, Gemma," I said, "there are many components to PL 15-108 than just the "Exit" provision or the removal of the consensual transfer. Why is it that you (Gemma and the Variety) only print negative things about the Law and none of the good things I put into this Law??" Gemma said, "I'm just an employee. I'm just telling you what they're saying." Rep. Tebuteb said "And she has an editor who also edits the stories." Gemma nodded her head in agreement. I continued, "Why don't you report the good things I put in the Law, such as the mandatory orientation which even the United States law doesn't have? This helps foreign national workers know what their rights are upon arrival in the CNMI. There's also the mandatory insurance provision which protects workers from a bad employer who may force the worker to pay his or her own medical expenses and possibly forcing the worker to forego seeking medical attention? We all know that the CHC is broke. It has had all these problems with employers who don't pay their bills." I said, "I tried to educate the public on this bill, but you guys (the Variety) have been boycotting me for months! Her response was, "Well, I'm interviewing you now!" I said, "I've sent you guys at the Variety educational materials to publish about this Law, but you've REFUSED to print them! In fact, rather than print what I send you, you go out instead to find someone to interview who just happens to be hostile to the bill who hasn't bothered to read the bill. Your reporting is not balanced. All we ask is that you be balanced in your reporting!"
In the heat of this "debate," Gemma started complaining about the $3.05 minium wage that was the prevailing rate in the CNMI for years. She said, "There's a lot of anger about the minimum wage being so low. What could you buy for $3.05 an hour?!" At this point, I was indignant. "Come on, Gemma! If it's so bad here, then why is it that we have such a hard time getting anyone to leave?" [Jeff and anyone else who reads this: Notice that this statement is different from the quote above that was attributed to me.]
I said to Gemma, "It's not just the foreign national workers that were paid the $3.05 an hour minimum wage. The locals were paid the same amount. What I didn't point out at that time was that despite being paid the same minimum wage amount, the locals were a lot worse off because the employers did not provide them with the same 100% medical coverage that they are mandated by law to provide their foreign national employees. Other benefits factored in for the foreign national workers, such as food, transportation, and housing. As a matter of fact, when Rosemary Cowan, a high official of U.S. Labor visited the CNMI last year. her take on this was that it was reverse discrimination!
In this interview with Gemma, she threw in a side question which was: "Do you think the Labor Law cost you the elections?" I replied that I'd be a fool to think it had no effect. Of course, it did! But if my losing the elections resulted in waking up the government officials to do something about the fact that many locals are now unemployed or will be unemployed and we have more foreign national workers in the CNMI than we have jobs, then I didn't mind losing.
At this point, Toni Apatang of PTI stood up to leave and said to Gemma, "I hope you put in the article everything she said!" as she gestured towards me. Gemma said, "I can't put everything in," and Toni said, "Then put in the important things." Representative Tebuted remarked again about the editor's role.
As the interview winded down, Gemma sat down and we were able to have a quieter conversation. I was stunned to hear her admit, though with the tape recorder off, but with Rep. Tebuteb still sitting with us that (1) The abuses in the Philippines are a lot worse than those that have been reported here in the CNMI; (2) that in the PI, the employers employ workers for six months and then, after that, they just let them go and hire replacements easily from the large pool of surplus workers.
****
The next morning, all the Variety reported was the side question Gemma asked me about whether I thought the Labor Law cost me the elections. It wasn't until the December 12 article came out that had some substance of the interview in it. Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, of course, Gemma's lead-in sentence LITERALLY put words in my mouth! There was also no attempt to use the OPA Jobs Study Report, a copy of which I gave her, to provide support for the information provided in the interview that there are a number of jobs that are being held by foreign national workers who aren't being paid the typical $3.55/hr that critics of PL 15-108 always cite.
As to your observation that I should have involved the Chamber ealier, I don't know how much earlier I could have involved them when they were part of the Task Force from DAY 1! The Task Force first met in April of 2006. Alex Sablan represented the Chamber and he received every meeting notice and updated version of the bill as drafted by the Task Force members. He is also a signatory on the OPA Jobs Study Report which came out in May 2007 indicating that there is a large number of jobs paying a minimum of $10/hr that are currently being occupied by foreign national workers! I assure you that the Chamber was HEAVILY involved. In fact, they asked for a private consultation before we conducted a public hearing so they would not have to give their comments publicly. Task Force members met with the Chamber prior to the public hearing at the Legislature. One of the compromises reached with the Chamber to address their concern about the exit provision was the 10% key employee provision which was incorporated into the version that the JGO Committee reported out of Committee. Hence, despite their request for an earlier PRIVATE meeting, the Chamber and HANMI presidents still appeared at the public hearing and testified anyway. Lynn Knight even urged the Committee not to report out the bill until after the OPA Jobs Study Report had been published. The Committee heeded this request and waited. It adopted the OPA Jobs Study Report findings within one week after the Report's publication.
The Task Force continued to meet with the Chamber again after the public hearing. The Committee remained opened to suggestions -- reasonable suggestions that is. Some suggestions were adopted; others were not. Even after the House passed HB 15-38, several members of the Chamber, including Harry Blalock, trotted up to the Senate to see Senator Pangelinan and Senator Reyes. I understand that some of the Chamber members were somewhat embarassed when she pointed out that having taken the time to read the bill section by section, Senator Pangelinan found that the House Committee had, in fact, accommodated the Chamber quite a bit! That was part of the problem -- some of the members never bothered to read the bill and relied on a small group of people to give their opinion about the bill. Yet, they were some of the most vocal critics of the bill. I understand that the former Chamber president even admitted to one of the Task Force members that he never read the bill because it was too thick, yet he remained a very vocal critic of the bill. So, to correct your assumption, Jeff -- one of the things I've got to make clear is that I may have been the principal author of HB 15-38, which is now PL 15-108, but there were MANY, MANY fingerprints on this bill, INCLUDING those of the Chamber folks!
Another thing that want to say to those who say we don't need a new Labor law; we just need to enforce the old ones. They forget that the Labor Law that was on the books prior to the enactment of PL 15-108 had been piece-mealed together and was easily circumvented. My challenge as we drafted HB 15-38 was to gather all the bills that that the House and Senate members introduced during the 15th Legislature and CONVINCE THEM to allow me to incorporate them into HB 15-38 and into the Labor Regulations where appropriate. Believe me -- this was no easy feat, let me tell you! Anyhow, the notion that we should just go out and enforce the old law was impractical in that years ago, Judge Munson struck down several of the enforcement statutes. Those statutes remained worthless until PL 15-108 rehabilitated them. Besides, it is very important to bear in mind that PL 15-108 has MANY components to it -- not just the parts that critics of PL 15-108 write about and complain about on tv.
As to my friend Zaldy Dandan's accusations that PL 15-108 is really about removing all the foreign national workers from the CNMI and returning to a much simpler time, this is Zaldy's interpretation of this Law, not mine. PL 15-108 is not a deportation act, which bars you from returning to the CNMI forever. We recognize that we will always need foreign national workers to help us and that's fine as long as they are not displacing our local workforce from jobs, which is the unfortunate current situation right now. And I don't mean the $3.55/hr jobs only either! Contrast that to the U.S. House Bill which recently passed which states that the number of foreign national workers will be reduced to ZERO within five years (2013) unless the transition period is extended for another 5 years. In addition to this, a whole host of benefits for the workers were also given up. Now, which part of this House Bill are the Unity March leaders and marchers celebrating?
Cinta
Jeff:
The December 12, 2007 edition of the Marianas Variety MISATTRIBUTED the following quote to me:
"THE principal sponsor of the bill that is now Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 says foreign workers who can't stand the local labor system can leave."
For the record, I NEVER made the above statement that was MISATTRIBUTED to me. Since I didn't have a tape recorder the day that I had this impromptu interview with Gemma -- though she did -- I'm going to relate to you what was said to the best of my recollection. And, by the way, if you want to verify any of this, why not ask Gemma for the taped interview? If she can't or won't give it to you, there were several other witnesses to this interview: Rep. Joseph Guerrero, Rep. Ramon Tebuteb, Toni Apatang from PTI, Nace from the Governor's Office, and other Legislative staff. These people were only a few feet from us and observed the whole heated discussion that went on.
Rep. Ray Tebuteb, who went to sit by Joe Rep. Guerrero, invited me over to speak with him right after we recessed from one of our sessions. As I walked up to him, I heard Rep. Guerrero telling Gemma that he wanted to wait and see how PL 15-108 works out before making any amendments to the Law. I'd heard and read several reports that Tina Sablan is talking to other lawmakers about repealing PL 15-108 once they get in, so I inferred that Gemma was asking Rep. Guerrero this very question when I joined Rep. Tebuteb. Her next response was "What about the six-month periodic exit?" I heard Rep. Guerrero say, "That's why we put in the 10%..." and as he was saying this, he looked over and motioned for me to jump into the conversation. I picked up where he left off. "Ten percent key employee exemption." "That's all?!" was Gemma's retort as she turned and headed towards me and Rep. Tebuteb to put the tape recorder down in front of us. "And you're going to send everyone home?!" She posed this question and successive questions to me in a challenging, confrontational way, rather than the normal tone she used to use to pose questions to me BEFORE I introduced HB 15-38, which has now become PL 15-108. I kept holding my hand up to indicate to her that I wanted her to stop interrupting me and to allow me to speak and finish what I was saying before she continued with her questions.
I said, "Gemma, you know that the 10% key employee provision is there because we don't want to jeaopardize the businesses. It was intended to make sure that the key employees of a business remained on the job to run the business with other employees while the employer staggers the periodic exit for the rest of the employees!" Her follow-up retort was: "With what skilled employees are you going to replace them with?!" I said to her, "Come on, Gemma! You mean to say that we're ALL unskilled and uneducated? And are you saying that we'll be unskilled and uneducated forever? How many educated and skilled locals have left these islands because they couldn't get jobs here?! ," I exclaimed.
"Have you seen the Public Auditor's Jobs Study Report?", I continued. This Report came out in May 2007. She claimed she saw the Report. I began discussing the Report when my staff handed me a copy of the actual Report. I read an excerpt from page 6 which talked about a one-year study that the OPA Jobs Study Group conducted. The one-year study that ended in August 2006 found that the Department of Labor renewed 800 job applications for "nonresident workers" who are making $10 an hour on up to $20+ an hour . Her retort was "Well, that's a small number. That's what... only 10% of the population!" I was stunned by her reply. I said to her, "Gemma, this may ONLY be 10% of the much larger Filipino population, but for the much smaller local population, that's A LOT of jobs!" I continued: "We have 400 government employees who will be losing their jobs at the end of December. I'm sure there's a lot of them who are skilled and educated!"
Gemma then said "The nonresidents came here and built the economy...." I said to her, "Let's go back and examine that statement. The foreign national workers were brought here to build our economy? Did you come to the CNMI to 'build our economy' or did you come to the CNMI because you needed jobs and we needed workers, so we opened up the opportunity to you? Now, I know some employers did not pay their workers, and that's unfortunate, but for most of the workers, did they not get paid for their work?"
I continued, "Ever since the enactment of the Nonresident Workers Act in 1983, the law established that we were to only bring in the workers to supplement our Labor workforce where needed -- not to replace our local workforce. We have that right to decide how many workers to bring in." Gemma continued to insist that the number of foreign workers displacing local workers from jobs is merely a small number. I vehemently disagreed with her and, at this point, Rep. Joe Guerrero jumped back into the conversation and said, "The number's not the important thing here. The important thing is that IT has already happened."
I then said to Gemma, "Do you think that we could go to the Philippines and do the same things that you all are doing over here?" She said "No; you can't compare the two places because they're different!" I said, "Why?" Her response was "Because they have a bigger workforce! It's a different situation there."
"You know, Gemma," I said, "there are many components to PL 15-108 than just the "Exit" provision or the removal of the consensual transfer. Why is it that you (Gemma and the Variety) only print negative things about the Law and none of the good things I put into this Law??" Gemma said, "I'm just an employee. I'm just telling you what they're saying." Rep. Tebuteb said "And she has an editor who also edits the stories." Gemma nodded her head in agreement. I continued, "Why don't you report the good things I put in the Law, such as the mandatory orientation which even the United States law doesn't have? This helps foreign national workers know what their rights are upon arrival in the CNMI. There's also the mandatory insurance provision which protects workers from a bad employer who may force the worker to pay his or her own medical expenses and possibly forcing the worker to forego seeking medical attention? We all know that the CHC is broke. It has had all these problems with employers who don't pay their bills." I said, "I tried to educate the public on this bill, but you guys (the Variety) have been boycotting me for months! Her response was, "Well, I'm interviewing you now!" I said, "I've sent you guys at the Variety educational materials to publish about this Law, but you've REFUSED to print them! In fact, rather than print what I send you, you go out instead to find someone to interview who just happens to be hostile to the bill who hasn't bothered to read the bill. Your reporting is not balanced. All we ask is that you be balanced in your reporting!"
In the heat of this "debate," Gemma started complaining about the $3.05 minium wage that was the prevailing rate in the CNMI for years. She said, "There's a lot of anger about the minimum wage being so low. What could you buy for $3.05 an hour?!" At this point, I was indignant. "Come on, Gemma! If it's so bad here, then why is it that we have such a hard time getting anyone to leave?" [Jeff and anyone else who reads this: Notice that this statement is different from the quote above that was attributed to me.]
I said to Gemma, "It's not just the foreign national workers that were paid the $3.05 an hour minimum wage. The locals were paid the same amount. What I didn't point out at that time was that despite being paid the same minimum wage amount, the locals were a lot worse off because the employers did not provide them with the same 100% medical coverage that they are mandated by law to provide their foreign national employees. Other benefits factored in for the foreign national workers, such as food, transportation, and housing. As a matter of fact, when Rosemary Cowan, a high official of U.S. Labor visited the CNMI last year. her take on this was that it was reverse discrimination!
In this interview with Gemma, she threw in a side question which was: "Do you think the Labor Law cost you the elections?" I replied that I'd be a fool to think it had no effect. Of course, it did! But if my losing the elections resulted in waking up the government officials to do something about the fact that many locals are now unemployed or will be unemployed and we have more foreign national workers in the CNMI than we have jobs, then I didn't mind losing.
At this point, Toni Apatang of PTI stood up to leave and said to Gemma, "I hope you put in the article everything she said!" as she gestured towards me. Gemma said, "I can't put everything in," and Toni said, "Then put in the important things." Representative Tebuted remarked again about the editor's role.
As the interview winded down, Gemma sat down and we were able to have a quieter conversation. I was stunned to hear her admit, though with the tape recorder off, but with Rep. Tebuteb still sitting with us that (1) The abuses in the Philippines are a lot worse than those that have been reported here in the CNMI; (2) that in the PI, the employers employ workers for six months and then, after that, they just let them go and hire replacements easily from the large pool of surplus workers.
****
The next morning, all the Variety reported was the side question Gemma asked me about whether I thought the Labor Law cost me the elections. It wasn't until the December 12 article came out that had some substance of the interview in it. Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, of course, Gemma's lead-in sentence LITERALLY put words in my mouth! There was also no attempt to use the OPA Jobs Study Report, a copy of which I gave her, to provide support for the information provided in the interview that there are a number of jobs that are being held by foreign national workers who aren't being paid the typical $3.55/hr that critics of PL 15-108 always cite.
As to your observation that I should have involved the Chamber ealier, I don't know how much earlier I could have involved them when they were part of the Task Force from DAY 1! The Task Force first met in April of 2006. Alex Sablan represented the Chamber and he received every meeting notice and updated version of the bill as drafted by the Task Force members. He is also a signatory on the OPA Jobs Study Report which came out in May 2007 indicating that there is a large number of jobs paying a minimum of $10/hr that are currently being occupied by foreign national workers! I assure you that the Chamber was HEAVILY involved. In fact, they asked for a private consultation before we conducted a public hearing so they would not have to give their comments publicly. Task Force members met with the Chamber prior to the public hearing at the Legislature. One of the compromises reached with the Chamber to address their concern about the exit provision was the 10% key employee provision which was incorporated into the version that the JGO Committee reported out of Committee. Hence, despite their request for an earlier PRIVATE meeting, the Chamber and HANMI presidents still appeared at the public hearing and testified anyway. Lynn Knight even urged the Committee not to report out the bill until after the OPA Jobs Study Report had been published. The Committee heeded this request and waited. It adopted the OPA Jobs Study Report findings within one week after the Report's publication.
The Task Force continued to meet with the Chamber again after the public hearing. The Committee remained opened to suggestions -- reasonable suggestions that is. Some suggestions were adopted; others were not. Even after the House passed HB 15-38, several members of the Chamber, including Harry Blalock, trotted up to the Senate to see Senator Pangelinan and Senator Reyes. I understand that some of the Chamber members were somewhat embarassed when she pointed out that having taken the time to read the bill section by section, Senator Pangelinan found that the House Committee had, in fact, accommodated the Chamber quite a bit! That was part of the problem -- some of the members never bothered to read the bill and relied on a small group of people to give their opinion about the bill. Yet, they were some of the most vocal critics of the bill. I understand that the former Chamber president even admitted to one of the Task Force members that he never read the bill because it was too thick, yet he remained a very vocal critic of the bill. So, to correct your assumption, Jeff -- one of the things I've got to make clear is that I may have been the principal author of HB 15-38, which is now PL 15-108, but there were MANY, MANY fingerprints on this bill, INCLUDING those of the Chamber folks!
Another thing that want to say to those who say we don't need a new Labor law; we just need to enforce the old ones. They forget that the Labor Law that was on the books prior to the enactment of PL 15-108 had been piece-mealed together and was easily circumvented. My challenge as we drafted HB 15-38 was to gather all the bills that that the House and Senate members introduced during the 15th Legislature and CONVINCE THEM to allow me to incorporate them into HB 15-38 and into the Labor Regulations where appropriate. Believe me -- this was no easy feat, let me tell you! Anyhow, the notion that we should just go out and enforce the old law was impractical in that years ago, Judge Munson struck down several of the enforcement statutes. Those statutes remained worthless until PL 15-108 rehabilitated them. Besides, it is very important to bear in mind that PL 15-108 has MANY components to it -- not just the parts that critics of PL 15-108 write about and complain about on tv.
As to my friend Zaldy Dandan's accusations that PL 15-108 is really about removing all the foreign national workers from the CNMI and returning to a much simpler time, this is Zaldy's interpretation of this Law, not mine. PL 15-108 is not a deportation act, which bars you from returning to the CNMI forever. We recognize that we will always need foreign national workers to help us and that's fine as long as they are not displacing our local workforce from jobs, which is the unfortunate current situation right now. And I don't mean the $3.55/hr jobs only either! Contrast that to the U.S. House Bill which recently passed which states that the number of foreign national workers will be reduced to ZERO within five years (2013) unless the transition period is extended for another 5 years. In addition to this, a whole host of benefits for the workers were also given up. Now, which part of this House Bill are the Unity March leaders and marchers celebrating?
Cinta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
