Raid!

This past week several companies were raided for hiring illegal immigrants. Swift, a major meat packer, and several smaller companies were hit and fined, and undocumented workers hauled off to who-knows-where. Many employers are upset by the raids, complaining that current hiring rules are so confusing that they are unsure just how to proceed when selecting employees. This article in today's LA Times is clearly sympathetic to the employers' plight.

"Employers are very much hamstrung — if they go too far, they run the risk of a discrimination lawsuit," said David J. Ceccanecchio, an attorney for Wolf Block in Philadelphia who advises businesses that hire immigrants. "If they accept documents at face value, they run the risk" of becoming targets of stepped-up federal enforcement of immigration laws.

In the last year, the federal government has arrested 716 individuals for employing illegal immigrants, compared with 25 in 2002. In addition to the Swift raids last week, a Southern California fence-building company was fined $5 million for employing illegal immigrants, and two Florida men were each sentenced to more than four years in prison for "leasing" illegal workers to various companies.

...Federal law requires businesses to have job applicants fill out an I-9 form and to verify that the person can legally work in the United States by checking documents — usually a Social Security card and photo identification. But employers are prohibited from asking for additional documentation to prove legal residency.

Unless the documents appear to be forged, employers must accept them and verify Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration — a process that can take months. [Emphasis added]

The employers, according to the article, are in that uncomfortable position between a rock and a hard spot. Still, one can't help but feel there is some misplaced sympathy going on here, and as one goes deeper into the article, that feeling becomes more pronounced.

Even if employers receive a "no-match" warning that workers' identities don't correspond to their Social Security numbers, their next move is a matter of dispute.

The Cincinnati clothing manufacturer Cintas Corp., which employs 32,000 people nationwide, this fall began to require its workers to resolve discrepancies within 63 days or be placed on unpaid leave. Religious leaders and unions trying to organize Cintas workers protested, and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), incoming chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, warned the company in a letter last month that it may be violating anti-discrimination laws.

Cintas is not the only company to take such a step. Last month, Smithfield Foods Inc. fired a few dozen workers at a Tar Heel, N.C., slaughtering plant who had received "no-match" letters. A thousand workers walked off the job in protest, and Smithfield rehired the dismissed laborers, giving them time to resolve the problem.

Labor groups contended that Smithfield, which a federal court ruled in May had harassed union backers, was trying to stifle organizing drives. But Smithfield officials said they were simply trying to do the right thing. [Emphasis added]

I think it highly possible, perhaps even probable, that many companies who rely on cheap labor count on the vulnerability of the undocumented worker to make the bottom line look healthier. What better way to thwart union organizing than to hold the threat of INS sweeps over everyone's head? And right now, the government seems perfectly willing to make those sweeps.

If these employers really wanted "to do the right thing," they would not only comply with federal law, they would pay decent wages and would stop fighting organizing efforts.

Who knows: such an approach might even increase the accessible labor pool in such a fashion that those employers wouldn't have to rely on undocumented workers to get the job done.

I know, fat chance.