Why does the Chamber oppose Tina Sablan's Resident Foreign National Act?

The Saipan Chamber of Commerce has come out against House Bill 16-86, the Resident Foreign National Act of 2008, introduced by Representatives Edward Salas, Victor Hocog, Heinz Hofschneider and Tina Sablan. Sablan described what the Act would do in Thursday's Saipan Tribune:

"If HB 16-86 is signed into law, qualified foreign nationals would be able to apply for an entry permit that would allow them the ability to be employed at will in the Commonwealth for the duration of their permits. This means that they would be responsible for negotiating the terms of their own employment contracts, including medical coverage, and for paying their own permit fees. They would also be able to operate businesses, and to accept, leave, and transfer jobs without having to obtain the approval of the Department of Labor. Foreign nationals who can show that they have maintained legal status in the Commonwealth for at least five consecutive years prior to the date of application; have a clean criminal record; have never been public charges of the Commonwealth; have sufficient potential for employment; and are not otherwise deportable, would be eligible to apply for resident foreign national entry permits."

Tina Sablan's full column in the Tribune can be found here. In her column, she effectively refutes the arguments that the Act would be moot because of federalization, that it would displace locals and other U.S. citizens, or that it would burden employers. In fact, she makes a strong case for why the bill would benefit the local economy.

Now, we can see why some people might have sensible reasons for supporting this and some would have sensible reasons for opposing it. But why would the Saipan Chamber of Commerce, which is supposed to be looking out for the interests of local businesses and the economy, oppose this bill? Don't they have an interest in stabilizing the work force by allowing a pool of qualified workers to stay here as long as possible? Could it be that Chamber leaders don't like the idea that these workers would have the right to transfer to different jobs, which would create a little more balance in the highly unequal power relationship that employers have traditionally enjoyed with their employees in the CNMI? Don't they realize that with the passage of the federalization bill, the special, artificial power advantages that CNMI employers have benefited from are on their way out anyway? Could it be that they oppose this bill because they haven't yet grasped the implications of the federalization bill? Just asking....

Meetings Left and Right

"To the left, to the left...Don't you ever for a second get to thinking you're irreplaceable...." Beyonce.

This Grammy nominated song plays in the background as my mind rambles with questions why have there been meetings with nonresident workers left and right. This week, the local government met with the contract workers group trying to convince them that the Reform Law is a good thing for every one. Then, we've heard that the office of the Ombudsman also met with the nonresident workers. Then, I got these calls from nonresident workers asking me the time of supposed meeting with the same office tonight.

What's going on? Well, I could hear the excitement from these callers like there have been epiphanies of hope for a brighter future. However, again this could also bring false hopes to some...

What's going on?

The Reveler

See, You See What It Means?

Our dear CUC is now rubbing off sweat bullets on its forehead fearing to lose most of its grants due to the "forced work stoppage of more than 20 nonresident workers and six engineers at the Commonwealth Utilities Corp." since Sunday. CUC deems this as a serious problem that could impact on the multi-million federal funding being awarded to utilities corporation.

Yesterday CUC officials met with the Legislature and the Executive Branch on a closed-door meeting to request for an extension of the employment of the non-resident workers at CUC. CUC said the lack of engineers and their technical expertise is against some of CUC's agreements with the federal government.