Thread: GA: Worker immigration policy drawing anger

Worker immigration policy drawing anger

By BEN SMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/21/07

A backlash appears to be brewing among contractors over a new policy that requires them to supply evidence that their employees are in the country legally when bidding for Gwinnett County contracts.

Three county commissioners confirmed Friday that they've received complaints from contractors about the county's revised purchasing ordinance. That includes Commissioner Lorraine Green, who spearheaded the vote to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants.

"The general complaint is that it might be impossible for a county contractor to comply with the ordinance," Commissioner Bert Nasuti said. "It puts them in an untenable position. And we've heard that from more than one major, major county contractor."

Nasuti said some have warned they if the ordinance is enforced, they will stop bidding for county work. Nasuti declined to name any of companies that have complained. Yet Chairman Charles Bannister of the County Commission and Green also said they'd received complaints from companies that do business with the county.

Green downplayed the complaints.

"I fully expected people to get upset, but they are few and far between," Green said. "Everyone I've spoken to and explained what we're trying to do and why we need to do this, has grudgingly understood and accepted our position."

Gwinnett County routinely contracts with private companies to perform a wide range of services, including road construction, architectural services, consulting and providing food and medical care for jail inmates.

Nasuti said the danger of losing companies that routinely contract with the county for major projects is that it shrinks the pool of competitors bidding for the work.

"It will the raise the price [of the project] because it will diminish the competition," Nasuti said. "You don't want one person bidding on a project.

"On some of those major, major projects, there might be less than 10 [qualified] companies," he said. "If you got several of them saying they can't do the work, or won't bid on the work, it makes it more difficult to get the projects done; it makes it less competitive and more expensive.

"I'm against illegal immigration, and I support ordinances that attempt to deal with it. But we now have some issues with this one that we're going to have to take a look at."

On June 26, the commissioners unanimously approved a new purchasing ordinance that requires vendors bidding on county projects to verify the legal status of all their workers, including those hired by subcontractors.

It also empowered county purchasing department staffers and auditors to periodically inspect companies after they've obtained a county contract and have started working on a project. That includes inspecting the employment records of such companies and interviewing their workers.

Several lawyers have warned that the latter provision may be unconstitutional because it requires companies to provide personal information about employees who haven't given their consent, which could violate their privacy.

Nasuti was absent when the board voted for the ordinance because he was attending an out-of-state national competition in which his two daughters were involved. He said he would have voted for the new anti-illegal immigration policy " because I think the intent behind it is good.

"But I may have requested for some additional review of the exact terms of the ordinance," he said.

Nasuti is the only lawyer on the board.

Bannister tried to delay the vote because he wanted to give everyone at the public hearing a chance to speak.

"Some of the folks were under the impression that this ordinance was no less restrictive than the state ordinance," Bannister said, "and such is not the case."

Bannister was referring to the law the Georgia Legislature passed last year. It aims to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining public benefits they aren't eligible for. One provision of the law would punish private employers who hire illegals.

Eric Meder, a staff attorney for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said, "One of the unintended consequences of these types of ordinances is having the uncomfortable task of having to enforce them, the consequences of which no one wants."

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... 1_web.html

"One of the unintended consequences of these types of ordinances is having the uncomfortable task of having to enforce them, the consequences of which no one wants."

THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST STUPID STATEMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD. OF COURSE IF YOU MAKE LAWS YOU EXPECT TO ENFORCE THEM. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU MAKE THE LAW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE. FCOL.

"Several lawyers have warned that the latter provision may be unconstitutional because it requires companies to provide personal information about employees who haven't given their consent, which could violate their privacy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would this be one of those imaginary rights illegals don't have?

The Constitution has but 2 parties on the contract: The American People & The governement. Illegals are not a part of either party.

The government can not, as they just found out, make illegals a part of a party without the permission of the other party. And we said, NO!!!

Originally Posted by Dawes

"Several lawyers have warned that the latter provision may be unconstitutional because it requires companies to provide personal information about employees who haven't given their consent, which could violate their privacy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would this be one of those imaginary rights illegals don't have?

The Constitution has but 2 parties on the contract: The American People & The governement. Illegals are not a part of either party.

The government can not, as they just found out, make illegals a part of a party without the permission of the other party. And we said, NO!!!

It must be one of those imaginery rights.

I have always been required to fill out an application and include all of my personal information, PROVIDE A RESUME, COPY OF MY DRIVER'S LICENSE AND SS CARD, list of references, their addresses and phone numbers. A credit and background check was required and verified as well. If I had not given my permission for all of these documents to be verified I'm sure I'd be unemployed right now.

So fine, if this illegal alien does not give permission for the information required by the company to be verified then he/she should not be hired or should be terminated for refusal. After all, reserving the right to do so prior to and anytime thereafter being offered employment is printed on all of the employment applications that I have ever filled out.

"Several lawyers have warned that the latter provision may be unconstitutional because it requires companies to provide personal information about employees who haven't given their consent, which could violate their privacy"

This is so lame. It can be solved by just having every applicant sign an authorization. It can work just like an authorization to do a credit check when you apply for credit.

They're saying it will be hard to get anyone to contract the jobs. That's because the legitimate contractors have been run out of business. In thim those contractors will come back if they know they won't get underbid by companies using cheap labor.

It would seem, all they would have to do is use the Federal program taht allows them to check the SS numbers of their employees.