|
[ This case bears close scrutiny.
Please spread this Post. ]
Tuesday January 15 5:33 PM ET
High Court Weighs Worker Rights By GINA HOLLAND,
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices tangled
Tuesday over whether illegal immigrants have the same rights as Americans if
they are mistreated at work.
U.S. citizens are entitled to back pay if wrongly
fired, and the Bush administration argued that people in the country illegally
deserve the same.
``The labor laws benefit everybody,'' government
attorney Paul R.Q. Wolfson told the court during oral arguments in the case of a
Mexican national who lied to get a job at a California plant and then was fired
after trying to start a union.
The National Labor Relations Board said Jose Castro
was owed nearly $67,000.
The board contends that if Castro is not paid for
the wrongful firing, other companies will believe they can exploit illegal
workers. Wolfson said with about 7 million undocumented workers in the United
States, the ruling could have a significant impact.
Several of the conservative court members
complained that Castro was being rewarded for faking documents to get a job,
while the employer that didn't know he was illegal was penalized.
Justice Antonin Scalia said he was surprised that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service supported the labor board in
rewarding illegal workers.
``It explains why we have a problem with massive
illegal immigration if that's how the INS feels about this,'' he told Wolfson.
Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the four more
liberal justices, said employers could be encouraged to ``run some God-awful
sweatshops.''
An employer ``has to pay for the sweat,'' retorted
Scalia, one of the court's most conservative members and considered a friend of
business.
``It's pretty low cost, violating every labor law
under the sun,'' responded Breyer.
The case, Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National
Labor Relations Board, 00-1595, was one of two involving worker firings that the
court reviewed Tuesday.
In the other case, justices seemed more united in
their skepticism of an appeals court decision that would make it harder for
employees to sue for alleged discrimination.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that
Akos Swierkiewicz didn't provide specific enough information when he sued Sorema
N.A., a French-owned reinsurance company, claiming the company fired him because
of his age and origin.
Swierkiewicz, an American of Hungarian descent who
was 50 when he was fired, is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate his lawsuit.
The court's ruling will clarify how much information must be included in those
types of lawsuits.
``Like it or not, the federal rules do not
require'' extensive facts in initial court filings, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
told Sorema's attorney. The case is Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.,
00-1853.
---------------------------------------------
Check out this new Discussion List:
PopulistBrainstorm
The group's purpose is to brainstorm for non-violent solutions to a major
world problem, "elite deviance: an elite behavior pattern indicative of belief
by said elites that the rules/laws of society do not apply to them."
Group members will tend to accept as given/plausible that the available evidence
indicates that a lawless hidden elite of the wealthiest banks, corporations, and
their owners, has achieved substantial control of global centers of power (
media,schools, governmental powers incl. the UN,commerce and production, etc.)
and is using this control to their benefit and our detriment - we being the
peoples of the world regardless of nationality, political party, religion, etc.
We must come together to solve this pressing threat to our freedoms and
prosperity while there is still time to do so. This should be fun. No idea is
too silly. Be loose; creativity and original thinking are the goals. No
ridicule; no put-downs. Let the Golden Rule prevail! Informational postings are
also appropriate.
Archibald Bard
|
