It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ Accuses U.S. Biz of Discrimination for Requiring Proof of Work Eligibility

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Semicollegiate




BTW Reagan's illegal alien amnesty back in the 80's tells you that the government is not taking care of the nation.


Actually there have been since amnesties from Reagan. Even ole W tried to get on passed through but it was blocked.

The Seven Amnesties Passed by Congress

So they been 'fixing' it for over 40 years each time breaking it worse.


You two are so close to the big picture it isn't funny!

Cloward and Piven, and google Peter Sutherland and his interview with the BBC in 2012!!!! I have already posted it 3 times and don't want to piss of the mods but google it! The immigrant problem and how countries are handling it was predicted and dictated years ago!


Exactly!!!

It is the preplanned doom of western civilization, and some of these idiots are championing it....

I just hope they get to suffer first when they help bring it all down.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
OK, I'm a little confused. If someone was a US citizen, they were not asked to prove that they were legally allowed to work. If they were born in another country, they needed to prove that they were legally allowed to work in the US. And the company is being fined for not asking US citizens to prove they were legally allowed to work?

How would a US citizen not be legally allowed to work?
What proof would a US citizen show to prove they are legally allowed to work?


Brother, you answered your own question.

All workers must always show photo ID and SS card for employment at every employer, period.

They are only making a stink because the illegal workers can't pass E-verify.

This is 100 percent left political bs.

Edited.... WTF my autocorrect won't let me type ID or SS card without manually overriding it.... WTF?
edit on 8-9-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I would feel bad for them...if they weren't told flat out that you can't do that.

I use the everify system. Its provided by DHS to allow you to verify the eligibility of applicants. But they tell you flat out that you are limited in what you can do (i.e., its not a prescreening tool).

More over, even if they aren't using everify (which is dumb...its a free service and gives you a stamp of approval straight from the horses mouth, making you INS audit proof), the I9 form clearly states in the first paragraph at the top of the first page:


Anti-Discrimination Notice.
It is illegal to discriminate against any work-authorized individual in hiring, discharge,
recruitment or referral for a fee, or in the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9 and E-Verify) process based on
that individual's citizenship status, immigration status or national origin. Employers
CANNOT
specify which
document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because the documentation presented
has a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination. For more information, call the Office of Special
Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) at 1-800-255-7688 (employees), 1-800-255-8155
(employers), or 1-800-237-2515 (TDD), or visit
www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc


www.uscis.gov...

I just can't feel bad for people who should be expected to know better, but don't.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly. This is being taken completely out of context and very few are looking at the "rules" as they are written.

Yet another knee-jerk from the emotional that take things out of context for political purposes.

I'm beginning to think reading comprehension is a lost art.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Holy jebus people.

The issue is that required one thing of one person and different things of others and based it off of where they were born!

It isn't about them trying to verify, it is about who they asked and who they didn't!


And how pray tell would you determine their place of birth without seeing soem form of ID? This is easily solved by just checking EVERYONE who applies,and if they get a e verify hit reporting them to ICE and denyying application.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

OK, a little further confusion.

If an employer cannot specify which documents that they will accept, does that mean they can't require a high school diploma, a DD-214, or even a resume?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa



And how pray tell would you determine their place of birth without seeing soem form of ID? This is easily solved by just checking EVERYONE who applies,and if they get a e verify hit reporting them to ICE and denyying application.


Correct. This company did not do that. They targeted certain individuals. They didn't ask everyone.

Hence the claim of discrimination.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Have you ever filled out an I-9? There is a specific list of what is required and what is acceptable. Asking for other documentation or anything other than what is listed can lead to cases such as this.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nope. Checking it out now. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: xuenchen

I read that a day or 2 ago and was like WTF?

How can the company be fined for obeying Federal law?

Eh, writing is on the wall I guess.........



When the law was enacted , I had to provide certain documents to prove I was a legal citizen. Their words , not mine.I have lived in this country for all my 56 years , registered voter for most of that time , and served 6 years in the military in this country.....


Good day to you citizen , now where are your papers?
edit on 8-9-2015 by Gothmog because: add



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

OK, I read it and I see the list at the end. One more question.

As I understand it, the Government is accusing the meat packing company of asking non-US citizens for documentation, while not asking for the same documentation of US citizens. I-9 contains a list of acceptable documentation, and it seems to be multiple choice; you can have this, or you can have that, or you can have the other thing plus something else, etc. I'm assuming both US citizens and non-citizens have to fill out the I-9.

So did the meat packing company ask of the non-citizens for something that was not required by the I-9? If so, what?

Was it that the meat packing company was refusing to accept adequate documentation as listed on the I-9? As in, the applicant provided a driver's license and SSN, but the company required a passport?

It wasn't really clear from the articles.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963


How can the company be fined for obeying Federal law?



Indeed. I suppose the current political atmosphere emboldens
lawbreakers that have an intent that is in sync with the agenda
of the administration in power.

Otherwise, where are the outcries of injustice?
We do not really know the limits of the DOJ,
in this instance it could be just as corrupted as
the IRS in its targeting.

The Stonewall Administration.


edit on 8-9-2015 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

From what I understand, they were specifying what they would accept as verification depending on the applicant. That is discrimination.

The employee, or perspective employee, has the right to provide any of the accepted documents without dictate from the employer.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

If you're making it illegal to ask and illegal to employ, then you're putting companies in a catch-22, which is unconstitutional.


Oh yeah, and what is even better, blur the lines so that employers are subject
to extra scrutiny, because they are small business. Chaos.

Cloward Piven all the way.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

From what I understand, they were specifying what they would accept as verification depending on the applicant. That is discrimination.

The employee, or perspective employee, has the right to provide any of the accepted documents without dictate from the employer.


Yeah, I understand that the employee has the choice of which docs they provide. But form I-9 also says that Section 1 must be filled out after the prospect accepts the job, but before the end of the first day of work. So the documents aren't legally required before the applicant accepts the job. Seems to me a shifty shyster could have gotten the company off. They could argue that they weren't actually requiring these documents before hiring, they were simply giving prospective candidates a partial list of documents that might be required if they were offered the job and chose to accept. The applicant misunderstood. It would be pretty hard to prove otherwise.

------

In any case, it's good to see the Department of Justice going after these hard core criminal companies that have 501 - 1000 employees. Maybe one day they can work their way up to going after organizations that tap congress-peoples phones, or cause recessions. But for now, I feel much safer knowing that small companies I've never heard of will be keeping their paperwork straight.

OR ELSE!
edit on 8-9-2015 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom



They could argue that they weren't actually requiring these documents before hiring, they were simply giving prospective candidates a partial list of documents that might be required if they were hired and chose to accept, and the applicant misunderstood. It would be pretty hard to prove otherwise.


You've never been an employer, have you? That is not how the process works.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You are supposed to hand the document to the prospective employee, and let them determine which documents they want to provide.

If you have a policy in place for one employee, you have to have it in place for all employees. For example, if i photocopy the ID documents for some employees but not others, it is a violation of law.

To all others: if you are in business, you are legally responsible for knowing what you are doing within the basic framework of the regulatory environment. There are no excuses for not knowing what is required when you take on the responsibility of employing people.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: VictorVonDoom



They could argue that they weren't actually requiring these documents before hiring, they were simply giving prospective candidates a partial list of documents that might be required if they were hired and chose to accept, and the applicant misunderstood. It would be pretty hard to prove otherwise.


You've never been an employer, have you? That is not how the process works.


I am an employer. Less than 5 employees. I interview face to face. My interviews are not recorded. If a prospective employee took me to court saying, "He said that!" my attorney could simply say "Prove it."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You are supposed to hand the document to the prospective employee, and let them determine which documents they want to provide.



So, to follow the law, you have to give the Form I-9 at the interview. Then you have to offer them the job. They have to accept. Then, they can present the documentation according to the form. If the employer refuses to accept the documentation, then they are in the wrong.

But, if the employer never offers the job, or the prospect does not accept, then the employer can't legally require any documentation. In court, the lawyer could argue that the employer never offered the job and/or the prospect never accepted, but if the prospect had gotten the job, the employer would have accepted any legal documentation according to I-9. If there is no record of the interview, it couldn't be proven otherwise.

(Bear with me, too much Perry Mason
)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I'm glad you decided to go after me personally off the first post you read. It is clear what this company was doing and it was wrong.

I found nothing offensive and never said I did.

Glad you think only Muslims can be terrorist on planes too.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join