Thread: Jobs Americans DO Want

Here is an idea for something to do in the future. What if people were to investigate and find out which jobs hire illegals that are jobs Americans are qualified and want? And then ( making sure we notify the media and have it mentioned several times ) have unemployed Americans "raiding" those companies who are hiring illegals --- and suing those companies for jobs that they have given illegals. If Americans who are unemployed all over this country ( and this would be good to do in the summer, when so many teens are out of school and could use a summer job ) were to suddenly show up at these jobs and sue them FOR jobs it could have an impact. And maybe it could get a few Americans off of unemployment.

Here is one for you, Mohawk employs over 30,000 people.

http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/misc/misc003.htm


11th Circuit allows RICO lawsuit to go forward against employer for allegedly hiring undocumented workers

Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 19, Issue 5, October 5, 2005


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has found that workers who alleged that their employer conspired with recruiting agencies to hire and harbor undocumented workers in order to keep the employer's labor costs low have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes.

The plaintiffs, current and former employees of a major carpet and rug manufacturer, Mohawk Industries, Inc., filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Mohawk violated the RICO statutes by engaging in a practice of knowingly hiring and harboring undocumented workers, which allowed Mohawk to reduce wages for its employment-eligible hourly employees and to discourage the filing of worker's compensation claims. The plaintiffs also alleged that as a result of this practice Mohawk was unjustly enriched.

According to the complaint, the company conspired with recruiting agencies and Mohawk employees to hire and harbor undocumented workers. Mohawk employees allegedly traveled to the United States border to recruit workers, whom they transported from border towns to northern Georgia to work for Mohawk. Mohawk paid these employees and other recruiters for locating the workers. The employees who served as recruiters, as well as other outside recruiters, housed the undocumented workers and helped them find employment with Mohawk. The plaintiffs allege that in order to employ the workers thus recruited, Mohawk knowingly or recklessly accepted fraudulent documents from them.

In federal district court where this case was filed, Mohawk filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the case, but the district court found that the plaintiffs had stated sufficient facts in the complaint to state a claim under federal and state RICO statutes. The district court also held that the plaintiffs had a claim under state law that Mohawk had unjustly enriched itself by using the lower wages it paid undocumented workers as a pretext for lowering the wages of employment-eligible workers. However, the lower court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim that was based on the reduced number of worker's compensation claims that Mohawk paid. The defendant, Mohawk, appealed the district court's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.

The circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's denial in part and granting in part of Mohawk's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss allegations in the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The circuit court first addressed the federal RICO claims. Under 18 USC sec. 1962(c), it is illegal "for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . ." To establish that the defendant committed a federal civil RICO violation, the plaintiffs must show the following four elements: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. In addition, under 18 USC sec. 1964(c), civil RICO claims require that plaintiffs also show (1) the requisite injury to "business or property" and (2) that such injury was "by reason of" the substantive RICO violation.

The court found that the plaintiffs properly alleged a pattern of racketeering activity based on Mohawk's alleged violations of (1) knowingly hiring at least 10 individuals, with actual knowledge that the individuals are unauthorized to be employed in the U.S.; (2) concealing, harboring or shielding from detection undocumented individuals who have illegally entered the U.S.; and (3) encouraging or inducing an undocumented individual to come to, enter, or reside in the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming, entry or residence is a violation of the law.

The appellate court also found that the plaintiffs' allegations that Mohawk and the third party recruiters engaged in a conspiracy to bring undocumented workers into the country for Mohawk's benefit were sufficient to allege an "enterprise" under RICO. The court held that the "common purpose" requirement had been met because the complaint alleged that Mohawk and the recruiters, under Mohawk's direction, worked together to recruit undocumented workers to come to Georgia, and that they had the common purpose of providing "unauthorized workers" to Mohawk so that the company could reduce its labor costs and the recruiters could get paid.

As to the requirement under RICO that the plaintiffs show that the defendant's actions resulted in injury to their business or property interests, the court held that the plaintiffs clearly alleged an injury to their business relationship with their employer, and thus to a business interest. The court similarly found that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient proximate cause and standing to state a federal RICO claim.

Based on a similar analysis, the court also found that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under the Georgia RICO statute. The court, however, found that the plaintiffs could not state a claim for unjust enrichment related to Mohawk's supposed savings from lower wages because unjust enrichment under Georgia law applies when there is no legal contract. Here, because the plaintiffs had an employment contract with Mohawk, the court ruled that there could be no unjust enrichment and held that the unjust enrichment claim should have been dismissed. Finally, the circuit court agreed with the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim related to the plaintiffs' allegation that Mohawk, due to its practice of recruiting and hiring undocumented workers, had been subject to fewer worker's compensation claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert this claim, since the increased profits Mohawk gained by lowering the amount of worker's compensation claims it paid were not related to the amount of wages paid to the plaintiffs.

This decision by the Eleventh Circuit is the latest in a series of cases in which employers have been sued under the RICO statutes for allegedly depressing wages and working conditions by knowingly hiring undocumented workers in violation of federal immigration laws (see, e.g., "Appellate Court Dismisses RICO Claim Against Employer for Allegedly Hiring Undocumented Workers," Immigrants' Rights Update, April 2, 2004, p. 6; and "9th Circuit Allows Work-Authorized Employees to Proceed with RICO Lawsuit against Agricultural Employers," IRU, Oct. 21, 2002, p. 12). It has been only recently that this strategy has been used against employers, since RICO was created primarily to target organized crime. Most of these lawsuits have been brought by employees or former employees of companies that allegedly hire undocumented workers. However, Canyon County in Idaho recently filed a lawsuit in the U.S. district court in Boise under RICO against local businesses that the county alleges have knowingly hired undocumented workers.

Williams v. Mohawk Industries Inc., 411 F.2d 1252 (11th Cir 2005).

--By Monica Guizar, NILC employment policy attorney

What about temporary agencies who place illegals in jobs? I have seen it first hand. I was at a temp agency over a year ago. A whole family of latinos came in and NONE spoke English. Interesting enough, almost all of the employees at the agency spoke Spanish. I kept peeping at those as they completed the application. They needed a lot of help from the secretary. There was a brief exam to check math skills and chart reading, etc.....they allowed them all to skip it. I politely placed my paperwork in the trash can and walked out. I needed a job but would not work with an agency catering to illegal immigrants.

Should I report this temp agency? if so, to who? media?

Should I report this temp agency? if so, to who? media?

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... age&pid=19

The above link has some tips on reporting illegals and their employers. You could also report them to the media.

What about temporary agencies who place illegals in jobs? I have seen it first hand. I was at a temp agency over a year ago. A whole family of latinos came in and NONE spoke English.

Temp agencies are one of the worst. My husband had to hire manual labor from one a few years back and he told the lady at the agency he didn't want any illegals. She got really indignant with him and swore up and down they didn't hire illegals. Yeah right. He told her he would check id when the workers got to the warehouse , she knew he was serious.

The workers she sent were mostly black and a couple of white guys. The workers did such a great job we added a couple of extra hrs to their timesheets. So much for jobs Americans won't do.

I really like that Mohawk lawsuit.

There seems to me to be several ways this could be attacked in the courts if you could find some enterprising attorney.

If some attorney could find the statistics of how much it actually costs the taxpayers, on an average, to pay for the upkeep of the illegals - add some for the diminishing education of our children, for the added environmental problems (20 million more people), the crime perpetrated on Americans by illegals, etc. - and file a class action lawsuit on behalf of as many Americans as wanted to participate.

Of course, suing the government is tough -

Maybe the states such as GA, that are passing these tough laws could sue the government for failure to protect them from these lawbreakers.

That was what the State of TExas was threatening to do years ago. The border school districts were going broke. That was before the flood reached the interior in any large numbers.

Of course, our legislature protected the feds and passed the Robin Hood Bill - that took from the 'wealthier' school districts and gave to the poorer (illegal ladened) school districts.