What if the power asymmetries between employers and workers that Seema so rightly descries are actually caused by, rather than prevented by, the separation of work authorization compliance enforcement between DHS and DOL?
On Seema's telling, it's good that DOL doesn't have enforcement authority because that would create a disincentive for unauthorized workers to report wage theft or unsafe labor conditions. But when they do, she readily admits that employers often retaliate by calling DHS. Certainly, the fact that this is a regular practice acts as a deterrent on reporting, harming all workers.
I'd like to propose an alternative. What if DOL operated like other law enforcement agencies where they gave reporters some temporary immunity from deportation or accelerated pathways to legal status, thus providing an incentive to cooperate with DOL prosecutors against potentially abuse employers? Obviously reports would have to be credible to qualify, and to avoid collective action problems you'd need to grant some immunity to all other workers who participated with investigators, not just the reporting worker.
Assuming that could be done at scale it would seem to remove one of the primary power asymmetries that employers have. They could no longer threaten to call DHS because the preceding DOL investigation would give those cooperating workers temporary immunity from prosecution by DHS. If DOL's job is to protect workers against harmful employers, why can't they treat unauthorized but cooperative reporters the same way that, say, detectives treat cooperative witnesses and co-conspirators in criminal investigations? Give them some qualified immunity, perhaps tiered based on how critical their cooperation is to the evidence needed in an investigation.
If this made workers more willing to report harmful employers than they are today, why shouldn't we consider it better than the current "firewall" approach between DHS and DOL?
That was interesting, a very informed and articulate guest in Ms Nanda.
I was especially interested in the independent contractor thing. I tried that back in 05 or so. You save on the employer's portion of SS and Medicare, and even much more on workers comp, and some on liability which is partially based on your size of payroll. There are hoops to jump through and a checklist to show that the subs really are independent contractors.
I gave it up after a year or so. It's cheating, and it's easier to simply pay a decent wage. When someone gets hurt, and they always do, I take them to the emergency room and call my comp insurer.
For the past decade I've had no employees as I slide into retirement. I noticed however that the number of companies doing my work has about disappeared. I speak Spanish to some extent and at the largest supplier in talking to contractors there for materials, I found out that one large company had bought out all the midsized companies in the metro region, and gone to a subcontract model. By hiring subs the large company is able to remain one step removed from the fact that most of the workers are illegal immigrant workers.
The subcontractors have a license and bank account by applying for a legal tax number from the IRS and an FEIN. Most of the employees though are paid under the table in cash based not on hours but by the day. Worst case the sub simply leaves, he too is here illegally. The piece rate for the subs is horrible.
No protections for worker safety. No medical care for injured workers. No hourly or overtime rate. Ignoring illegality in one sector of labor law invariably lends itself to other law breaking.
What if the power asymmetries between employers and workers that Seema so rightly descries are actually caused by, rather than prevented by, the separation of work authorization compliance enforcement between DHS and DOL?
On Seema's telling, it's good that DOL doesn't have enforcement authority because that would create a disincentive for unauthorized workers to report wage theft or unsafe labor conditions. But when they do, she readily admits that employers often retaliate by calling DHS. Certainly, the fact that this is a regular practice acts as a deterrent on reporting, harming all workers.
I'd like to propose an alternative. What if DOL operated like other law enforcement agencies where they gave reporters some temporary immunity from deportation or accelerated pathways to legal status, thus providing an incentive to cooperate with DOL prosecutors against potentially abuse employers? Obviously reports would have to be credible to qualify, and to avoid collective action problems you'd need to grant some immunity to all other workers who participated with investigators, not just the reporting worker.
Assuming that could be done at scale it would seem to remove one of the primary power asymmetries that employers have. They could no longer threaten to call DHS because the preceding DOL investigation would give those cooperating workers temporary immunity from prosecution by DHS. If DOL's job is to protect workers against harmful employers, why can't they treat unauthorized but cooperative reporters the same way that, say, detectives treat cooperative witnesses and co-conspirators in criminal investigations? Give them some qualified immunity, perhaps tiered based on how critical their cooperation is to the evidence needed in an investigation.
If this made workers more willing to report harmful employers than they are today, why shouldn't we consider it better than the current "firewall" approach between DHS and DOL?
That was interesting, a very informed and articulate guest in Ms Nanda.
I was especially interested in the independent contractor thing. I tried that back in 05 or so. You save on the employer's portion of SS and Medicare, and even much more on workers comp, and some on liability which is partially based on your size of payroll. There are hoops to jump through and a checklist to show that the subs really are independent contractors.
I gave it up after a year or so. It's cheating, and it's easier to simply pay a decent wage. When someone gets hurt, and they always do, I take them to the emergency room and call my comp insurer.
For the past decade I've had no employees as I slide into retirement. I noticed however that the number of companies doing my work has about disappeared. I speak Spanish to some extent and at the largest supplier in talking to contractors there for materials, I found out that one large company had bought out all the midsized companies in the metro region, and gone to a subcontract model. By hiring subs the large company is able to remain one step removed from the fact that most of the workers are illegal immigrant workers.
The subcontractors have a license and bank account by applying for a legal tax number from the IRS and an FEIN. Most of the employees though are paid under the table in cash based not on hours but by the day. Worst case the sub simply leaves, he too is here illegally. The piece rate for the subs is horrible.
No protections for worker safety. No medical care for injured workers. No hourly or overtime rate. Ignoring illegality in one sector of labor law invariably lends itself to other law breaking.