Will passing tax reform actually help the gop

[Johnny_Ace]

@k9bfriender

If the objective is to prevent ineligible workers from working, then just going through the motions doesn’t seem to do much, other than maybe make some people feel good.

I suppose if you are saying it’s a CYA, then sure it is, but a CYA, almost by definition, doesn’t actually address the problem.

Not rare at all in the restaurant industry. We were always understaffed, so if we were even further down, then there really was no “stretching of staff”, it was just “run long wait times, long ticket times, make more mistakes because of haste, and lose not only a bunch of money from customers that couldn’t get in, comps for customers who complained, but also business in the future because of the lower quality service given due to understaffing, and maybe lose some more employees from the cluster that is created.”

If you have a bad week in the restaurant industry, that can ruin your whole year, or even drive you entirely out of business.

Having a bad week due to poor management is the restaurant’s problem. Having a bad week because of third party becurccratic slow responses is not the restaurant owner’s fault.
Some are franchise, some are corporate. The specific one that this happened at was a corporate store.

Do you think that would be a defensible position in a court of law, if you were charged with immigration violations as an employer?

[k9bfriender]

@Johnny_Ace

Do you think that would be a defensible position in a court of law, if you were charged with immigration violations as an employer?

I am not sure what you mean by “that.”

If by “that” you mean not using e-verify, as it is not required to use it, then yes. If you mean accepting documents presented as though they are in good faith, then sure.

IANAL, but I would say that yes, filling out the I-9 according to the instructions of the I-9 is a perfectly defensible position in a court of law.

If you are talking about my pointing out of instances of document abuse by ignorant managers, then no. If they don’t bother to ask for or check the documents to properly fill out the I-9, then they have no leg to stand on.

[Johnny_Ace]

@k9bfriender

I am not sure what you mean by “that.”

If by “that” you mean not using e-verify, as it is not required to use it, then yes. If you mean accepting documents presented as though they are in good faith, then sure.

IANAL, but I would say that yes, filling out the I-9 according to the instructions of the I-9 is a perfectly defensible position in a court of law.

If you are talking about my pointing out of instances of document abuse by ignorant managers, then no. If they don’t bother to ask for or check the documents to properly fill out the I-9, then they have no leg to stand on.

So all one of the cheating employers has to say to get off, then, is “The documents looked OK to me.” Very convenient.

[DrDeth]

@Johnny_Ace

So all one of the cheating employers has to say to get off, then, is “The documents looked OK to me.” Very convenient.

More or less.

But they also have to pay them the same, and treat them just liek any other employee.

The bad old days of employers paying Illegals half of what they paid others and making them work harder and longer without benefits are gone.

Now, if they get paid the same, etc and you have reasonable docs, you are Ok.

[Johnny_Ace]

So, bets on how many of those 21 arrests were employers?

[k9bfriender]

@Johnny_Ace

So all one of the cheating employers has to say to get off, then, is “The documents looked OK to me.” Very convenient.

Same as if you buy alcohol from a store using a fake ID. If you present a fraudulent document, it is your fault, not the person who takes it in good faith. That’s pretty much how the law works. I’m not sure why that is so upsetting.

There are some exceptions. When I worked at Wendy’s, they used a more in house eligibility checking system. One of the employees came back as a “bad number”, so he was let go. He came back a week later with a “new number”, the GM laughed at him and showed him the door.

Look, they make improvements to E-Verify to where I can just put in the SS# and name at any time of the day or week, and get a reply instantly, then I can see requiring its use more broadly (it already is required in some states), but as is, it does no good, and does some harm. As it does more harm than good in its current state, the complaint that it is not voluntarily used by employers is not a compelling one.

Also, it is not like the govt does not have access to all the information that I would put into e-verify. The first time payroll taxes get paid on the SSN, if it’s not a valid employee, then they can tell that right there and then. If they wanted to actually crack down on ineligible people working, that would be the better way. See who is getting payroll taxes paid who shouldn’t be, then notify the employers.

Much easier to implement for all parties, and takes the onus of enforcing immigration law off of private citizens and onto the government where it belongs.

@DrDeth

More or less.

But they also have to pay them the same, and treat them just liek any other employee.

The bad old days of employers paying Illegals half of what they paid others and making them work harder and longer without benefits are gone.

Now, if they get paid the same, etc and you have reasonable docs, you are Ok.

And that is the other very good point. It makes much more sense to allow them to work above board, if with improper documentation, than below the table.

There are many ineligible workers who end up working in poor conditions for far less than minimum wage, with no payroll taxes being taken out, no income taxes being paid. This actually does hurt american jobs, as having someone working with those low of standards is much cheaper than the protections that are required for any legitimate employee who is actually on the books.