Thread: Workers fight back against employers bringing in Illegals

http://www.startribune.com/168/story/466017.html


WORKANDLIFE060106
Last update: May 31, 2006 – 10:18 PM

Workers using anti-mobster law in fight over pay
The plaintiffs are claiming that some employers and recruiters are conspiring to bring in illegal immigrants to keep company wages low.
H.J. Cummins, Star Tribune

It's all well and good to calculate the full impact of illegal immigrants on the communities where they come to work -- making money through wages, costing money because of children in schools, spending money locally and so on.
But what about in one workplace?

What if you work somewhere and you're convinced your pay is less because a lot of illegal immigrants are working around you, driving down the going wage?

Some employees in that situation are suing. And they're using a law you've probably heard of mostly in FBI or Mafia movies: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to rule on one case. And in another, in Washington state, a fruit grower recently agreed to an out-of-court, $1.3 million settlement. The firm admitted no wrongdoing, but it is the first time legal U.S. workers will be paid damages for depressed wages connected to illegal immigrants, according to the employees' attorney.

Basically, the handful of RICO cases across the country accuse employers of a form of organized crime: collaborating with others, including staffing companies, to pack their workplaces with illegal immigrants knowing they'd work cheap and drive down wages. Their alleged tactics include bonuses to recruiters for undocumented workers, isolating those workers in separate housing, and providing them false documents.

The legal co-workers have suffered collateral damage, they say in class-action lawsuits filed against the companies. Some ask for past lost wages; RICO allows for triple damages.

The lawsuits are a creative and useful application of RICO, a federal statute that already has been applied beyond the world of mobsters to targets as varied as Medicare fraud and terrorism, employment and RICO attorneys said.

But they caution against overreaching and hitting employers who unknowingly do business with unscrupulous staffing firms, for example.

In the Washington state case, Zirkle Fruit Co. settled last December. Its executives said the company wanted to put the lawsuit behind it.

The case now before the Supreme Court involves Georgia-based Mohawk Industries Inc., one of the country's biggest carpeting and rug manufacturers, with about 30,000 employees.

Mohawk's appeal argues that it is not a part of a conspiracy -- a RICO requirement -- with its staffing agency, as the lawsuit claims.

The court agreed to clarify what constitutes a conspiracy, what RICO would call a larger "enterprise" with others of ongoing criminal acts.

"If I have a business contract with a staffing agency, and that agency does something wrong, can I be held liable under RICO?" is the question employers want answered, said employment attorney Kevin Lindsey of the Halleland Lewis Nilan & Johnson law firm in Minneapolis.

"That would greatly expand RICO, and for most employers that would be going a little too far," Lindsey said.

An interesting side development, he said, is that Mohawk is being sued under the Georgia RICO as well as the federal RICO statutes. Minnesota is among the states with its own RICO statute, he said.

That's one way to bring immigration, an otherwise federal issue, down to the states, he said, some of which want to be more activist than the federal government.

Lindsey said he could see why some state attorneys general "might feel they would be more vigilant than the federal government."

RICO's purpose is not to punish a business person who makes some hiring mistakes, or who has a sloppy human-relations department, said Michele Garnett McKenzie, an attorney at Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights.

"It's far, far worse conduct required than, say, they were just lazy in checking papers," she said.

Some companies knowingly and systematically exploit illegal workers, said Jeff Keyes, a RICO attorney at the Briggs and Morgan law firm in Minneapolis.

"And that smacks an awful lot like the type of criminal enterprise RICO was designed for," Keyes said.

Those companies are also a problem for his corporate clients that have to compete against them, he said.

"I think RICO can and should be used to get the very heart of the problem," Keyes said. "You can build all the walls around the borders that you want, you can have all the guest worker programs you want, but until you find some way to take away incentives from employers who shave the rules, the problem will always be there."


What are your workplace issues? You can reach H.J. Cummins at workandlife @startribune.com. Please sign your e-mails; no names will appear in print without prior approval.

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

Well!!!

It's about damn time is all I can say to this!

GO AMERICA!!

It's what we were born to do and trained for all our lives.

GO! GO! GO!

HOORAH!!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Well!!!

It's about damn time is all I can say to this!

GO AMERICA!!

It's what we were born to do and trained for all our lives.

GO! GO! GO!

HOORAH!!!!

Hi JudyYou know,if Americans would stand up and Take a few day`s off,we could send a loud and clear message that would let our so called leaders know how important Americans are,they tend to forget.Voting them into office isn`t enough proof I guess.Firing them will be fun,for us that is.

YES jcalex...it will be FUN firing these Turd Balls.

Lets Party America!!

All American Workers no matter what color your collars need to stand up, speak out, use that good ole American Ingenuity, American Law, and American Marketing strategies to shut this illegal work force DOWN and ship them out immediately.

WE CAN do this...slow downs; strikes; every NLRB allowed activity plus lawsuits need to be undertaken....WITHOUT MERCY!!

Shut these Globalist Traitors down.

HOORAH!!

GO! GO! GO!

Thank Goodness!

More and more Americans need to stand up and fight this invasion anyway we can. This is our country and we need to take it back!

Does anyone know how the Mohawk Carpet case is going?

What about the Flag Day (June14) walkout? It's been posted somewhere on this site.

Does anyone know how the Mohawk Carpet case is going?

Still under appeal, as far as I can tell.

They're dead meat if the amnesty doesn't pass.

Serve's their sorry A$$E$ RIGHT!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Well!!!

It's about damn time is all I can say to this!

GO AMERICA!!

It's what we were born to do and trained for all our lives.

GO! GO! GO!

HOORAH!!!!

Ditto

You got that right Pinestraw, and good for those workers to stand up and say they are lowering the wages for american workers. Whether they win or lose it still makes a statement. They will be toast if this amnesty does not pass

To Concerned Citizen:

You peaked my interest on Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Williams

The argument was presented on 04/26/06 You can read it at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... ripts.html. The docket # is 05-465.

Really tortured stuff. I sincerely hope that the Justices aren't going to pin their decision on Phillips (lawyer for the Defendants) interpretation of Title 18>Part I>Chapter 96> &1961.
His twisted logic suggests that because Mohawk Industries and the Temp Agencies are a "group of corporations" they are excluded from prosecution under the RICO Act.
How? By:
1.trying to divide the 'Enterprise' and exclude Mohawk- i.e.,attempting to make the "activity of the enterprise" seperate from Mohawk and therefore exclude Mohawk from the suit.
2.Argue that the definition of 'enterprise' (even though it uses the word includes) does not include Mohawk Industries; since "groups of corporations aren't listed.
3. He also lamely attempts to state that Mohawk did not participate in the affairs of the temp agencies even though Mohawk provided fake social security #'s among other things to Illegal Alien Employees sent by the temp agencies. He asserts that it's just the company conducting its' own affairs. (Though the decision in H.J. Incorporated pretty well kills that argument)

Definition of Enterprise: from Title 18>Part I>Chapter 96> &1961
(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;