1. Is the current employment verification system fair to employers?

2. Do you believe that unauthorized workers should have the same protections against discrimination, sexual harassment, and wage and hour violations as authorized workers?

3. Is the work authorization audit a better enforcement tool than the worksite raid? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Chapter 16 The changing Workplace 575 20 years of seniority from 30 months to 20 months, its score moved from 41 to 35. When Australia passed a reform law abolishing limits on overtime and night work and freeing companies with 100 or fewer workers from unfair dismissal laws, its score improved from 17 to 3. Such exibility reforms lessen worker protections and weaken unions, which naturally oppose them. An editorial in the pro~labor Multinational Monitor argued that \"exibility is all for employers, not workers," calling it "a corporate con\" that should be seen \"as a fancy and obscure term for enhanced employer power over workers."61 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Six forces are changing the workplacedemography, technology, structural shift, competition, reorganization of work, and government regulation. All have a pro- found affect on the fortunes of millions of workers around the globe, In the United States demographic change is creating more diverse, less discriminatory work- places. Structural change and automation are moving more workers into service occupations. Global competition in labor markets and reorganization of work has reduced the job security of American workers. However, government regulation in the United States gives workers many protections Every nation must strike a balance between worker protection and employer exibility After nearly 100 years of labor strife and legislation the United States seems to have found its way to a balance that protects a broad range of worker rights while leaving employers relatively free to hire and fire for economic rea- sons. In the next chapter we will explore in more depth one of the most fundamen- tal of workers' rightscivil rights. 5' "The Labor Flexibility Con,\" Multinational Monitor, July/August 2006, p 6 A Tale of Two Raids Migration, or the resettlement of people, is as old as humanity. It often has shaped history, as it did when migranis from Europe to the New World formed an American civilization. Migrants are driven by the op- portunity to improve their lives. Costs of migrating are very high, but individuals who leave less devel- oped countries on average double their educational attainment and increase their income by 15 times.I ' United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development (New York: UNDP, 2009). p. 24. Today, migrants make up about 3 percent of the world population. In the U.S. population the figure is higher, 5.1 percent, or 251 million people. or these, 12.5 million are legal permanent residents, 0.9 million are authorized temporary workers, and 11.6 million are unauthorized entrants, Each year 750,000 of these migrants become US. Citizens. Another 1.2 million leave the country voluntarily or are removed} 2 Figures in this paragraph are from Department at Homeland Security, Ofce at Immigration Statistics, at www.dhs.goy/ files/statisticsmmigration.shtm. August 4, 2010. 576 Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace EXHIBIT 1 Number of Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: 18202009 2.000 1.600 E 5 Now Permanent ugal Resldents (In thousands) 8 a 200 oneseossefff Source: Department at Homeland Security. Figures ale for scal years The United States has attracted many immigrants over time (see Exhibit 1). Although they come for many reasons, jobs are the principle motivating factor. To control the inux of people across the bor- ders Congress has made it illegal to hire aliens lack- ing official authorization to work. This is the story of how that prohibition works in practice. OPERATION WAGON TRAIN December 12 is Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, one of the most important cultural and religious dates on the Me>doan calendar, a day of prayer and estas. It celebrates a day, almost 500 years ago, when an image of the Virgin Mary miraculously ap- peared on a peasant's ragged cloak On this day in 2006, a Tuesday, the morning shifts at Swift 8: Company processing plants in six states reported for work at 7:00 am. Swift 6: Company is one of the world's largest beef and pork processing corporations. It traces its beginning to Gustavus Swift, who opened a meat store near Boston in 1859. Swift had exceptional ambition. As his business grew, he revolutionized the industry with conveyor lines on which livestock carcasses were cut apart into products and shipped on railroads. These disassem- bly lines required plenty of workers willing to take low wages for hard, dangerous labor. The 7,000 workers who reported for the morning shift more than 100 years later were still doing the jobs the founder created. As in the past, most were immigrants doing work spurned by more affluent Americans. It may have been a holy day, but no miraculous images would appear. Instead, just as shins began uniformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents swarmed the six plants in a coordinated raid, the largest ever conducted before or since. They sealed entrances and exits. Inside, they sought out individuals suspected of working illegally under false identies. Monica Salalar. 26. stood with this Sign outside the Swift plant in Greeley, Colorado. Sourte Q AP Photo/Ed Andrleskl Panic followed. In Grand Island, Nebraska, peo ple started running and yelling, They tried to hide in lockers and broke windows to get out. Buses came to the plant and drove 240 workers to deten- tion centers for deportation processing. They rolled past knots of family members at the fences waiting for word of loved ones inside.3 Guards handed out leaets with a toll-free, bilingual phone number to call for information. In Greeley, Colorado, some workers hid in cattle pens, Veronica Perez and her husband were pulled apart. \"He tried to give me a kiss on the forehead,\" she said, "but they would not let us talk to each other. They made him and myself seem like criminals." A woman in tears asked a coworker to adopt her child, saying she had no one else in the area.5 ICE agents 3 Leslie Reed, '\"Terrible' Day Separates Families,\" Omaha World Herald, December 13, 2006, p. 1A. ' Quoted in Julia Preston, "lmmigrants' Families Figuring Out What to Do after Federal Raids,\" The New York Times, December 16, 2006, p. 13. 5 Bruce Finley, \"Fractured Families,\" Denver Post, December 14, 2006, p. A1. Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace 571 handcuffed 261 workers and assembled them in the plant cafeteria. One, Sergio Rodriguez, Was working legally, but did not have his resident alien card His wife brought it to the plant but was not allowed in. He was bused to a detention center near Denver and held until 8:30 pm. before being released. Around this time another detainee, Gabriela Terrazas, was al- lowed to call and ask a brother to pick up her daugh- ter from the babysitter. And so it went. Another 30 workers were arrested in Worthington. Minnesow; 275 in Cadus, Texas; 196 in Marshalltown, Iowa; and 95 in Hyrum, Utah, for a total of 1,297. All were charged with immigration sta- tus violations and 274 were also charged with crimi- nal offenses. Families were torn apart. When Juan Ramirez was taken in Greeley, he left behind his wife, Isabel, and three children, two of whom had been born in the United States. Juan brought in the family's only income Now his wife, who also was in the coun- try illegally, had no way to pay the bills. Church offi- cials in Greeley said more than 100 children were left without one or both parents.6 Cornmunitia were challenged. On the day of the raid nearby schools saw attendance plummet and sales at local stores fell off as immigrant families stayed in their homes Some would hide for days. A woman in Worthington, Minnesota, took in 24 immi- grants too afraid to go back to their homes.7 In Cactus, Texas, hundreds appeared at an evening mass offering prayers for divided families.E Swift or Company made contributions to the United Way to help people affected by the raids However, distrust of authority kept most families from approaching so- cial service and welfare agencies for aid. Many turned to their churches insteadr Operation Wagon Train, the agency's code name for the raids, left Swift 6t Company in disarray. Nearly 20 percent of its morning shift was gone. Hundreds more employees failed to show up for the 5 ICE policy is not to detain or arrest sole caregivers for small Children. Is agents worked with Swift to identify and release them. Julie L. Myers. 0.5. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, speech to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, June 14, 2007, pp. 34. 7 Maiicella Mirand and John Brewer, "Worthington Still Reeling After Raid,\" St. Paul Pioneer Press, December 14, 2005, p. A1. 5 Frank Trelo and Isabel Morales, \"Raid, Fear Tear Apart Families," Dallas Morning NEWS, December 13, 2006, p. A21. 513 Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace second shift. It was unsure exactly how many em- ployees it had In the end it estimated the raid cost it $30 million.9 When the company criticized ICE for a heavy-handed operation, it got a curt response \"ICE is not responsible for Swift's illegal alien workforce, nor did ICE create this problem for Swift," said an agency statement \"Any company with illegal aliens on its payroll should not be surprised to see ICE agents at its doorr"ID In fact, the company knew the raid was coming. Ten months earlier ICE had opened a review of its employment records. Its investigation was started by tips from local police and anonymous calls from indi- viduals suggesting that hundreds of illegal aliens, aided by document rings, were using identies stolen from US. citizens to work at Swift plants\" Soon the agency's investigators suspeded that up to 30 percent of Swift's employees were unauthorized workersr It decided to obtain search warrants for raids. When Swift learned this, it asked to work with ICE to reduce disruption Instead of a one-day raid it pro- posed a stepby-step action in one plant at a time over four months. ICE rejected the idea because it would alert unauthorized workers who would vanish and use their stolen documents to get jobs elsewhere. Then Swift suggested doing is own voluntary re- view of employees. At first ICE restrained the com- pany, but finally gave it permission. Swift hired immigration experts, identified suspect employees, and scheduled interviews with them. As a result, more than 400 workers were fired, quit, or failed to show up for the interviews. At that point ICE ordered Swift to end its self-review because many unauthor- ized workers were disappearing before they could be taken into custody and deported. Finally, Swift tried to stop the raids with a court order, arguing they would "ineparably harm Swift 9 Testimony of John Shandley, senior Vice prefident for human resources, SWlft a Company, Hearing on Problems the Current Employment Verification and Works/re Enforcement System, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law of the Committee of theludiciary, U.S. House oi Representatives, 110th Congress, 151 Session, April 24, 2007, p. 4. \"7 Quoted in Christine Tatum, "Raid on Swift Leaves Staffing in Disariay,\" Denver Post, December 15, 2006, p, C1. " Julie Myers, assistant secretary, Department oi Homeland Security, \"Remarks at a News Conference Announcing a Worksite Enforcement Operation a! a Nationwide Meat Processor," Washington, D.C., December 13, 2006, p. 2. by interfering with its legal business operations and by damaging its reputation" in violation of its con- stitutional property rights.\" ICE countered: "Put simply, there is no constitutional or statutory right for anyone to continue violating the law, and the government need not work on a potential violators' timetable r r ."u A federal judge allowed the raids to proceed.\" The enforcement philosophy at ICE is to focus on employers suspected of egregious violations. It seeks out those who \"knowingly\" violate immigration law by trafficking in illegal laborers, harboring illegal aliens, or participating in identity fraud. Swift it; Company did not seem to fit these characteristics of an egregious violator. In many ways it exemplified compliance with the law It did not exploit unauthorized laborers. It paid its packing plant employees more than twice the federal minimum wage, 1t offered them comprehensive health plans that 30 percent joined. Its accident rate was lower than the industry average. When Congress passed the [emigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, it complied strictly with the law's requirement that every newly hired employee ll out a Form 1-9. FORM 1-9 The Immigration Reform and Control Act was a com- promise. In return for granting amnesty to 3 million unauthorized residents Congress promised to curtail further illegal entry. A major lure for illegal entrants was the ease of finding work To attack this problem, Congress ourished a sword of paperwork called the Employment Eligr ility Verication Form, or Form 1-9, and drafted the nation's employers to wield it. Hiring an alien worker is illegal if the employer knows that person is not authorized to work in the United States The employer must complete Form [-9 to check on the status of every employee hired" It is a one-page form with three sections (see Exhibit 2). '1 sac Hoidco 3, inc, Form BK, December 13, 2006, p. 5. '3 Christine Tatum, \"Swift Tried to Block Raid,\" Denver Post, December 14, 2005, in. C1. '4 Swift & Company v. Immigration and Customs EnforCement, No. ZOGCV314-J, N. Dist. Texas, order entered December 7, 2006. '5 There are very limited exceptions, ior example, ior householders hiring domestic workers and ior employees who will not be working on U.S. soil. Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace 579 580 Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace EXHIBIT 2 Form 1-9 In Section 1 the employee fills in a name, address, company knowingly hires an unauthorized alien, it OMB No. 1615-0047; Expires 08/31/12 date of birth, and Social Security number, checks a can receive a civil fine of up to $16,000 per alien Department of Homeland Security Form 1-9, Employment box regarding authorization to work in the United hired. Where there is a "pattern or practice" of J.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Eligibility Verification States, and signs with the date. knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, manag- Read instructions carefully before completing this form. The instructions must be available during completion of this form. In Section 2 the employer certifies a review of doc- ers and companies face criminal fines of up to ANTI-DISCRIMINATION NOTICE: It is illegal to discriminate against work-authorized individu d individuals. Employers CANNOT uments that show the new employee is authorized to $3,000 per hire and six months in prison. Aliens specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because the documents have a work. The employer must verify this review by writ- who use counterfeit or stolen documents or falsely future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination. ing down which of a combination of 26 different doc- attest their work eligibility on a Form 1-9 can be Section 1. Employee Information and Verification (To be completed and signed by employee at the time employment begins.) Print Name : Last First Middle Initial | Maiden Name uments from three "Lists of Acceptable Documents" fined and sentenced to a maximum of five years in has been reviewed. These documents must establish prison. 17 Address (Street Name and Number) Apt. Date of Birth (month/day/year) both identity and employment authorization. Some Employers must be careful how they handle the documents, such as a U.S. passport or a permanent Form 1-9 process. It is unlawful to discriminate city State Zip Code Social Security resident card (commonly called a "green card"), es- against job applicants or employees based on na- tablish both. Other documents establish one or the tional origin, race, ethnicity, citizenship, or immi- I am aware that federal law provides for I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am (check one of the following): other and must be presented in combination. gration status. A company cannot require job appli- imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or A citizen of the United States Some combinations work. Others do not. For ex- cants to complete Form 1-9 and reveal their use of false documents in connection with the A noncitizen national of the United States (see instructions) ample, the employee might use a driver's license to citizenship status before hiring. It cannot decide to completion of this form A lawful permanent resident (Alien #)_ establish identity and a Social Security card to estab hire only citizens. It cannot treat applicants or An alien authorized to work (Alien # or Admission #) until (expiration date, if applicable - month/day/year) lish work authorization. Another sufficient combina- workers differently because they look or sound Employee's Signature Date (month/day/year) tion is a school identification card (for identity) and a "foreign." A job requirement for fluent English is birth certificate issued in the United States (for work only permitted if it is required to do the job effect Preparer and/or Translator Certification (To be completed and signed if Section 1 is prepared by a person other than the employee.) I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I have assisted in the completion of this form and that to the best of my knowledge the information is true and correct. authorization). However, a Social Security card and a tively or essential to safety. Employers cannot dic- Preparer's/Translator's Signature Print Name birth certificate in tandem are not acceptable because tate the specific documents workers offer or ask for neither establishes identity. documents beyond the minimum required. It was Address (Street Name and Number, City, State, Zip Code) Date (month/day/year) The company must examine the documents to here that Swift & Company ran into trouble. make sure they are current and "reasonably appear After passage of the 1986 immigration law the Section 2. Employer Review and Verification (To be completed and signed by employer. Examine one document from List A OR on their face to be genuine."16 It is not required to in- examine one document from List B and one from List C, as listed on the reverse of this form, and record the title, number, and company decided to exercise great caution. It tried expiration date, if any, of the document(s).) vestigate their authenticity. However, it must teach to avoid hiring unauthorized workers by taking ex- List A OR List B AND List C its staff such arcana as when to expect watermarks, tra care to screen individuals who looked or acted Document title: where seals appear, and how designs changed in cer- "foreign," asking these persons for extra document Issuing authority tain years. If documents are stolen or skillfully coun- tation not required of others. It may have hired Document #: terfeited the employer is not expected to detect the fewer unauthorized workers this way, but it also Expiration Date (if any): fraud. Simply taking a good faith look shields com- subjected some U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants Document #: panies from prosecution. to greater scrutiny, thus violating their civil rights. Expiration Date (if any): Section 3 is for updating. If an employee's work In 2002 it was sued for $2 million by the Depart- CERTIFICATION: I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the document(s) presented by the above-named employee, that authorization had an expiration date, the employer ment of Justice for engaging in "a pattern or prac- the above-listed document(s) appear to be genu to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, that the employee began employment on month/day/year) and that to the best of my knowledge the employee is authorized to work in the United States. (State must ask the employee for new documents to verify tice of citizenship status discrimination . . . against employment agencies may omit the date the employee began employment.) reauthorization, then attest that they appear genuine. U.S. citizens" and lawful immigrants. Swift paid a Signature of Employer or Authorized Representative Print Name Title Form 1-9 has to be completed within three days settlement of $174,088, a record sum, and agreed to after a new employee first reports for work. An em- retrain its hiring staff. It was a lesson that there Business or Organization Name and Address (Street Name and Number, City, State, Zip Code) Date (month/day/year) ployee who does not produce the required docu- were limits in its ability to screen its workers. ments within that time can be fired. Section 3. Updating and Reverification (To be completed and signed by employer.) A. New Name (if applicable) B. Date of Rehire (month/day/year) (if applicable) Violation of this paperwork regime invites seri- ous penalties for corporations and their managers. 17 These prosecutions are, however, difficult because the C. If employee's previous grant of work authorization has expired, provide the information below for the document that establishes current employment authorization. Failure to properly complete Form 1-9 can lead to Supreme Court has required the government to prove the worker used counterfeit documents knowing the numbers Document Title: Document #: Expiration Date (if any): civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation. If a on them belonged to other people. See Flores-Figueroa v. I attest, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of my knowledge, this employee is authorized to work in the United States, and if the employee presented document(s), the document(s) I have examined appear to be genuine and to relate to the individual. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009). Signature of Employer or Authorized Representative Date (month/day/year) 16 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Handbook for 18 Department of Justice, "Department of Justice Annan Employers: Instructions for Completing Form 1-9 (Washington, Settlement Agreement with Swift & Company," Form 1-9 (Rev. 08/07/09) Y Page 4 DC: Department of Homeland Security, July 31, 2009), p. 6. 630, November 4, 2002.E-VERIFY Swift always prided itself on its diligent hiring. In 1997 it volunteered to be one of the first companies using a pilot program for electronic screening set up by the government. This program, which is now called EVerify, allows the employer to enter the employee's name and Social Security number in a government Web portal. That information is then compared with databases at the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. If the employee's information matches entries in the databases, within seconds the company receives a certication that the employee is eligible to work. If there is no match, the employer has a chance quickly to check for typographical errors. If there still is no match, the employee's information is re- ferred to staffs of verifiers who check other data- bases. If they cannot confirm eligibility then the system issues a tentative nonconfirmation. The em- ployee has eight working days to correct any errors by calling toll-free Social Security Administration or United States Customs and Immigration Service numbers or by visiting these agency's local offices. Some errors are simple to correct, for example, a name change. If the employee does not correct an er- ror during this eight days the EVerify system issues a final nonconfirmation to the employer who must then either discharge the employee or continue em- ployment only for a brief time if it seems likely an error will be corrected. Participation in EVerify has grown to more than 200,000 employers. It is now mandatory for federal contradors, and 12 states require its use by some or all businesses. One mark of its effectiveness is that when a company announces it uses E-Verify it can work just like drug testing to deter unacceptable applicants. Marcelino Garcia owns a chain of Mexi- can restaurants. When he started using E-verify, he immediately began having trouble finding kitchen help. "It's been very, very tough," he says. \"We can interview 20 people and maybe only one person\" can legally work.lg Ironically, Garcia entered the country years ago by swimming the Rio Grande River and traveling in a car trunk. He worked hard, was natu- ralized, and now employs 500 people. '9 Quoted in Thomas Burr, \"Employment Screenlng: Here It Comes, Ready or Not, " Salt Lake city Tribune, lune 19, 2010. p. 1 . Chapter 16 The changing Workplace sat According to the Department of Homeland Seou- rity, EVerify works well. About 95 percent of initial responses are consistent with the employee's work authorization status. of the 4 percent that are in error, about 0.7 percent reect database or keyboarding errors and the other 3.3 percent are cases of success- ful identity fraud. Yet EVerify has major weaknesses, as the experi- ence at Swift 1!: Company showed Only 62 percent of E-Verify inquiries are for unauthorized workers and that 3.3 percent error rate balloons into a 53 per- cent failure rate when it is applied only to the 6.2 per- cent of inquiries about unauthorized individuals?\" If such persons submit real Social Security numbers with matching names of persons qualied to work in the United States, E-Verify issues certifications. E-Verify has encouraged a widespread identity theft industry that helps its customers to appropriate real numbers and names to qualify for work. THE OUTCOME FOR SWIFT In the end, Swift was never charged with any crime. That did not mean it went unpunished. On the day of the raid the company issued a press release in which Sam Rovit, its president and CEO, said, "Swift has played by the rules and relied in good faith on a pro- gram explicitly held out by the President of the United States as an effective tool to help employers comply with applicable immigration laws/'21 It had taken on the administrative burden of help ing the government detect and police illegal immi- gration. It had made a good faith effort as required by law to verify the status of all its employees. It had volunteered to go beyond legal requirements by par- ticipating in the E-Verify program. It paid large sums for training, software, record keeping, consultants, and attorneys. These efforts were rewarded with the largest civil fine ever levied for national origin discrimina- tion and the largest worksite raid ever conducted. Another Swift executive, reecting on these events, said, \"It is particularly galling to us that an em- ployer who played by all the rules and used the 1" Westat, Findings of the E-Ve/ify Program Evaluation (Rockville, MD: Westat, December 2009). 2' Swlft s Company, "0.5. Immigration oicials Commence Employee Interviews at Six win a Company Facilities,\" press release, December 12, 2005, p 1. stir Chapter 16 The Changing Workplace only available government tool to screen employee eligibility would be subjected to adversarial treat- ment by our government.\"22 A NEW ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY The departure of the George W Bush administration altered the erilorcement philosophy at ICE. Although President Obama vowed not to \"look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates out- side the law\" and promised to \"step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders,\" there have been fewer workplace raids.\" Only 765 undocu- mented workers were arrested at their jobs in scal year 2010 versus 5,184 in 2008.\" Instead of raids, the Obama administration emphasizes another enforce- ment toolthe employer audit. Some employers call these audits \"silent raids." Employers are required to keep Form 1-9 for all cur- rent employees on file. If a company is targeted for enforcement, ICE auditors scrutinize these forms, photocopies of employee documents, and payroll records. Audits are efficient. Small numbers of ICE audi- tors quietly check immigration status without the confrontation and disruption of a worksite raid. When the audit is complete, ICE gives the employer the name of each employee it suspects is unauthor- ized to work. The employer and employee then have an opportunity to correct any error However, if ICE is correct, the company is put on notice that some work- ers are unauthorized to work. It now \"knowingly\" employs these workers, which breaks the law. If it continues it risks nes and prosecution of managers. GEBBERS FARMS Although audits lack the sudden drama of a worksite raid, they can be harsh enforcement tools as the story 11 Testimony oilohn w shandley, p. 4. 13 President Barack obama, "Getting Past the Two Poles of This Debate," speech at American University, July 1, 2010, at www.whitehouse.gov. 2' Peter sievin, \"Deportation of Illegal Immigrants Increases Under Obama Adminis1ratlon," The Washington Post July 26, 2010, p. A1; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, \"Worksite Enforcement Overview," at www.ice.gov/piews/ factsheetslworksitehtm. of Gebbers Farms illustrates. A century ago the Gebbers family settled in Brewster, Washington, a small community in the eastern part of the state where the cool nights, sunny days, and dry atmos- phere make conditions just right for growing apples and cherries. For five generations the family tended its orchards until its privately held company became the third-largest grower in the country. Other growers sprang up nearby The town of Brewster, population 2,139, pros- pered with stores and services for the area's field hands. Apples are hand-picked and apple trees have to be pruned and thinned by hand. To avoid bruis- ing, cherries are also picked by hand. This is hard work. It pays low wages and the only willing work- ers are immigrants. Spanish now prevails on the streets of Brewster and 90 percent of the students in its school district are Hispanic.25 In 2009 ICE targeted Gebbers Farms for an audit. When it checked Form [-95 for eld lands and ware- house workers against Social Security and legal im- migration databases, it found 550 employees lacking work authorization. As a result, two days before Christmas the company hand-delivered brief letters to workers explaining that those without proper doc- uments were fired. It gave them three months to va- cate company housing. No one was handcuffed. No one was arrested. No families were separated. No one went into hiding. Still, there was traumar Some fired workers had been with Gebbers Farms for up to 20 years. Many owned homes and had stable lives in Brewster. In the town, business dropped off People stopped making car and rent payments. At the La Moderna clothing store sales dropped 30 percent. The owner of the taco truck named Taqueria e1 Tapatio No. 4 reported \"fewer people are coming to eat.\"6 A few families retumed to Mexico, others wanted to stay Antonio Sanchez, a 51-yearold or- chard worker, thought he might buy a new Social Security number and reapply for his old job.27 Most 25 Julia Preston, \"Illegal Workers Swept from Jobs in 'Silent Raids,'H The New York Times, July 10, 2010, p. l. 25 Jose Antonio, quoted in Rochelle Feil Adamowsky, "Layoffs Leave Brewster Waiting, Worrying," The Wenarchee World, January 9,2010, p. 1. 17 Melissa Sanchez, \"Massive Firings In Brewster,\" Yakima Hamid-Republic February 14, 2010, p. 1. bought new documents and fanned out for work at other orchards, but because of the audit, employers in the area were wary of hiring them. Vlflthin months, Brewster lost a sizable part of its population, Operations at Gebbers Farms were disrupted. It immediately advertised hundreds of jobs, but had trouble filling them. Eventually it brought in about 100 temporary guest workers from Jamaica, not enough to replace its lost hands, but all it could le- gally get.\" The Jamaicans spend little in local stores, preferring to send their pay back home. Meanwhile, groups of Hispanics from Los Angeles appeared in town One man asked a reporter if there would be more audits, saying he might need a better Social Security number.29 Many in the area believed this kind of immigra- tion enforcement was unreasonable and unfair. Daniel Aguilar, who had been fired along with his wife, pointed out that during \"the cherry-picking season, there's maybe 2,200 of us working in the orchards. Of those, there wasn't a single white American, Why does it bother them that we're doing the work they don't want to do?\"3n Tracy Wamer, an editor at The Wenatchee World, a local paper, elaborated on the theme. [Y]ou wonder exactly what this "enforcement\" accomplishes, by forcing people out of producve employment due to suspect paperwork. if indeed they are illegal aliens they are still illegal aliens. Pre- sumably they will resume life in the shadows and find other work, somewhere. Meanwhile, a commu- nity will be struck an economic blow. These workers were producing wealth in a mutuauy benecial pact with their employer . . . For a commumty to lose perhaps hundreds of hardworking people overnight will have a profound effect, and belie the false notion that immigrants make no contribution . . . But the law is the law." 15 These workers were brought in under the H-ZA Temporary Agrlcultural Worker Program. Employers must certify that no U.S. workers are available in their area and three iederal agenclesthe Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Statemust approve. In recent years only 50,000 to 80,000 workers have been admitted under the program. 29 Melissa Sanchez, \"Massive Filings in Brewster," p. 1 3 lbid, 3' Tracy Warner "Immigration Reiorm Soon,\" The Wenal'chee World, January 7, 2010. Chapter is The Changing Workplace 5:3 UNAUTHORIZED WORKERS: RIGHTS AND ABUSES The 11.6 million illegal inunigtants in ihe United States fill many jobs Americans are unwilling to take. Every year the economy creates more of these lowly jobs than the number of immigrants who legally enter the country. Those who enter without authori- zation are often victims of human trafficking and fraudulent recruiting. Some die on the journey. However, once in the country they are entitled to the same civil rights protections against discrimina- tion and sexual harassment in the workplace as American citizens. They are also entitled to protec- tion under labor laws. For example, when six His- panic employees at Wok Teriyaki restaurant in Gig Harbor, Washington, lied about their work authori- zation, its owners fired them and refused to pay their final wages. These migrants got a lawyer and sued not only for their final wages, but for failure to pay overtime and the minimum wage. A federal judge ruled their immigration status was \"irrelevan " and ordered a judgment based on the Fair Labor Stand- ards Act, a 1938 law that establishes wage standards for all employees.32 Despite such entitlements, unauthorized workers often face labor law violations. A study of lowwage industries in the three largest US. citiesChicago, los Angeles, and New Yorkfound that foreignborn unauthorized workers were frequently victimized. Among those working as cooks, dishwashers, sewing machine operators, car wash attendants, child care workers, and in similar low-wage occupations, 38 pep- cent were paid less than the federal minimum wage and 85 percent worked unpaid overtime.33 When unauthorized workers are found on pay- rolls, they can be arrested and torn from homes and families. Businesses and corporations then use a flawed verifi tion system to fill the job vacancies, inevitably hiring more unauthorized workers. But they must walk a very thin line between being caught by ICE for "knowingly\" harboring unauthorized 32 Bailorl a sack Am #1 Corn, u.s. Dist. LEXIS 114744 (2009) at 14. No. C09-OS483JRC, w. Dlsi. Washington (2009) 33 Annette Bernhardt, et al., Broken Laws, Unprotected Wolkers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America (Chlcago: Canterlor Urban Economic Development, 2009). pp. 42 and 44. 534 Chapter16 TheChanging Workplace workers and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice for citizenship status discrimination. If they are successful, the profits that come from the illegal toil are protected Questions It Is the current employment verication system fair to employers? , Was Swift 8: Company socially responsible in its hiring and verification practices? Could it have done more? Was it treated fairly by ICE? , Is the work authorization audit a better enforce- ment tool than the worksite raid? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? 4. ls the current verification system fair to job appli- cants and employees? Does it allow companies to exploit umuthorized workers? . Do you believe that unauthorized workers should have the same protections against discrimination, sexual harassment, and wage and hour Violations as authorized workers? . Does current enforcement of workplace immigra- tion rules invite disrespect for the law? Should the government step up enforcement? Should us. immigration policy be reformed? If so, how should it be changed