Thread: AZ: Attorneys, employers wait for the judge to rule

ht[img]tp://oneoldvet.com/images/nogalesinternational.gif[/img]
Attorneys, employers wait for the judge to rule
Denise Holley

True or false? The Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) requires employers to verify the employment authorization of every one of their employees.

True, says Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, a sponsor of the state employer sanctions law.

False, says George Silva, Santa Cruz County Attorney, whose office is charged with enforcing the new law in the county. Only new hires after Jan. 1, 2008, must have their data run through the federal E-Verify system. He believes the law is not retroactive.

It all hinges on how you interpret the word “employ.â€

This is the carp that has to stop

They cannot keep trying to subvert these laws ,

That is why the majority of new anti illegal laws that we celebrate on sites like these , need to be read right down to the fine print

Most are loaded with waivers or language that these raza people can argue and keep in the courts forever

It's a disgrace here in AZ. Note Ulma represents the Yuma area. Yep, where the BA was killed And Konopnicki owns a string of fast food restaurants. Nice. Anybody out there know a good place to move for a technical professional that pays a lot in taxes?

Tweaks to sanctions law suggested
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 18, 2008 12:00 AM
The employer-sanctions law has been in force for a mere two weeks, but a number of changes have already been proposed for the hotly debated measure.

Many address issues identified by a business task force that House Speaker Jim Weiers assembled last fall. Others speak to problems identified by Gov. Janet Napolitano and the federal judge considering a challenge to the law.

On Thursday, the first fix won unanimous approval from the House Homeland Security and Property Rights Committee.


House Bill 2063 corrects a reference to a federal law on immigration-related employment. The bill signed into law in July had the wrong citation. Meatier proposals are waiting in the wings.

Led by Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford, and Rep. Theresa Ulmer, D-Yuma, the package of six bills attempts to address problems identified in recent months, such as whether the law applies to all employees or just new hires.

"Overall, people want a logical, unemotional, reasonable fix," said Konopnicki, who voted for the sanctions bill last year but later said he regretted his vote.

The owner of several McDonald's restaurants, Konopnicki said he's experienced firsthand the cost of complying with the law, which requires employers to screen new hires against a federal database that checks the validity of a hire's Social Security number and eligibility to work in the U.S.

Konopnicki said he has had to hire a full-time person to run these checks through the E-Verify system because his business has high turnover. He has also hired a part-time person to review earlier hiring documents.

He said he has also heard from many small businesses in his rural district that worry the law could harm them. If an employer is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker, his state-issued business licenses are at risk: probation or a suspension of up to 10 days for a first offense, revocation of the license for a second offense.

Ulmer said the bills mirror many of the concerns she's heard from businesses, primarily farmers, in her border district in southwestern Arizona. Her main concern is the ambiguity of the law's scope: Does it apply to all workers on a payroll or only to new hires?

House Bill 2346 would change the law to make it clear that it pertains only to new hires.

Other bills, which have yet to be scheduled for a hearing:


• HB 2341 would make use of the E-Verify system optional, instead of mandatory.


• HB 2342 would clarify that independent contractors are not employees and therefore not subject to the terms of the sanctions law.


• HB 2343 would bar anonymous complaints, require that complaints be made in writing and contain the full name of the complainant, as well as an address. It also would specifically bar discrimination as a motivation for lodging a complaint.


• HB 2344 would change the definition of "knowingly" hiring an illegal worker to mean the employer must have "actual or constructive knowledge that the person is an unauthorized alien." It also establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof that prosecutors must demonstrate to successfully prosecute an employer.


• HB 2345 would take the state attorney general out of the process. Ulmer said that office has limited authority under the current law, and it would be a cost-saving and efficiency move to simply remove him.