Constitutional Law

Guest Blogger: When Workers Take a Backseat to Political Posturing

by Catherine Singley, a Policy Analyst at the National Council of La Raza.

In the latest sign that the recession will leave no sector of the economy untouched, Microsoft announced in late January that it plans to lay off 5,000 employees. As workers began to deliver the news to their families and friends, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) delivered a letter to Microsoft’s chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, saying, “It is imperative that in implementing its layoff plan, Microsoft ensures that American workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign workers on visa programs.”

What does this mean?

The foreign-born workers the Senator refers to are highly skilled employees Microsoft hired from abroad through the H-1B temporary worker visa program. By demanding that Microsoft gives American workers “priority in job retention” over those on visas, the Senator is implying that the company should lay off workers based solely on their immigration status, and possibly their national origin, regardless of merit or job performance. Doing so could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on an “individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” as well as other applicable federal or state laws. As a voice for U.S. Latinos, 60 percent of whom are U.S. citizens, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has always viewed business visa programs with some degree of skepticism. However, program flaws should be addressed through the legislative process, not by inciting violations of civil rights laws.

At a time when Americans are counting on Congress to tackle the economic crisis, Senator Grassley and others seem more preoccupied with scoring cheap political points. When it comes to the economic stimulus package, Senator Grassley is joined by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) in these tactics. They are promoting provisions in the bill that call for a massive expansion of E-Verify, an employment verification system that is meant to prevent undocumented immigrants from getting hired. Yet E-Verify has a shameful track record of wrongfully denying employment to eligible workers—including U.S. citizens. Such an anti-worker measure has no place in a package intended to create and save jobs. Forcing employers to sign up for the faulty E-Verify program would further dilute the legislation’s attempt to stimulate the economy by adding unnecessary red tape and administrative burdens to businesses.

There is need for serious debate about the merits and provisions of temporary worker programs. When companies are violating labor laws, they should be held accountable. When systems are creating abuse, they should be revamped. All American workers are better off when we strengthen their ability to bargain collectively for rights and benefits and when we provide them with legal protections from exploitation. Mr. Grassley’s posturing, sadly, does neither.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on February 05, 2009 (boomark / email).