The U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs has awarded the CNMI government a $333,000 grant to assist the CNMI's labor and immigration enforcement efforts. This is the same grant that Governor Fitial rejected last year, accusing OIA of "outrageous" behavior by attaching conditions that were "unprecedented, unnecessary and unproductive." He accused OIA of holding the grant funds "hostage." OIA defended the conditions as normal, reasonable and necessary accountability provisions designed to ensure that the funds would be properly spent for their intended purposes. See story here.
Well, the grant that Fitial has now accepted has the same conditions that were attached to the grant that he rejected last year. And rather than complain about the "outrageous" conditions, the Governor thanked OIA Director Nikolao Pula "for supporting the CNMI's strong law enforcement efforts by awarding us with these needed grants." In fact, the primary difference between the grant that he rejected last year and the one that he has now accepted is that OIA was offering $420,000 last year, and has since reduced the grant to $333,000.
So what has changed between then and now? And here's a more interesting question: How much of this grant money, which will be used in part to fund attorneys and paralegals for the Office of the Attorney General, will be used to support the CNMI's lawsuit against the very federal government that is providing the funds?
Showing posts with label Labor and immigration reforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labor and immigration reforms. Show all posts
Jul 25, 2008
Jul 3, 2008
"Don't hold your breath," but would green cards for long-term guest workers be good for the CNMI?
The following conversation was overheard recently at one of the water coolers here at Saipan Middle Road World Headquarters:
He said: "Did you here that Jim Benedetto said that CGWs shouldn't hold their breath hoping to get green cards?"
She said: "Yeah. He's been pretty consistent over the years in saying that workers shouldn't count on the hope that they'll get green cards."
He said: "OK, but let's forget for a minute about whether it's likely that CGWs will eventually be able to apply for green cards. If they were allowed to apply for green cards, would it be good for the CNMI?"
She said: "I guess that depends on who you are. It would be good for you if you were a foreign worker."
He said: "OK, but what if you were a business owner?"
She said: "Wouldn't most business owners prefer the way things were before the federalization law passed?"
He said: "Maybe, but that's not an option anymore. The feds have made it clear that the CNMI will eventually have to phase out its guest worker program and just follow the federal rules. They'll probably extend the phase-out for at least five years after 2014, maybe more. But eventually it will be phased out."
She said: "So what's your point?"
He said: "The only hope in the long term of business owners being able to keep their best CGWs is to give them green cards. Otherwise, they'll eventually have to leave."
She said: "But if you give them green cards, they can go to Guam or Hawaii or California."
He said: "Yeah, but if you don't give them green cards, they'll eventually have to leave unless they can qualify for a visa under U.S. standards, and some people--although I don't know if I trust these particular people--are saying that most CGWs probably can't. If these people are right, then giving CGWs green cards is the only hope under the new law of being able to keep the best long-term employees. If you're an employer, wouldn't you rather have a chance of keeping your long-term workers, even if they suddenly had more bargaining power and you had to pay them more, than not having a chance to keep them?"
She said: "I guess, but I'd probably like the old system even better."
He said: "Like I said, that's not an option. That's why giving CGWs green cards is probably the best option now for employers."
She said: "What about criminals and people like that."
He said: "They wouldn't qualify. You'd have to meet certain standards, and it would only be a one-time thing for workers who have already been here for, say, five years."
She said: "What about from the standpoint of locals? Do we want Filipinos to take control over our islands?"
He said: "Well, for one thing, that could already happen when their U.S. citizen children are old enough to vote. But if you give them green cards, a lot would leave."
She said: "Well, how would it help the locals?"
He said: "It would help the locals if you didn't have all of this cheap labor. The way things have been, pay is too low outside of government if you're a local, and in order to get a job in government, you have to kiss up to whoever's in power. If you changed the system, maybe locals who have left will come home, and maybe a lot of CGWs would leave to find better opportunities stateside. Businesses would have a shot at keeping the CGWs that they want to keep, but they'd have to compete for them just like employers have to do in Guam."
She said: "Well, I don't think it's going to happen. And also, those workers signed a contract and it was always understood that they would have to go home."
He said: "I know. I'm not saying that it's going to happen. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. And I'm not saying that the workers are entitled to get green cards. I'm just saying that if they did get green cards, maybe it would be the best thing for the CNMI, including the locals and the business owners. And maybe if we all recognized that this would be good for all of us, then we could really unite as a community--locals, businesses, CGWs, even the human rights activists--and lobby for it in Washington. And maybe if we all speak with one voice, rather than contradict each other like we usually do, they'll actually take us seriously for a change."
She said: "Well, if you could get the Chamber and Wendy Doromal and Taotao Tano all holding hands and pushing for this in DC, that might make an impression. But it will never happen."
He said: "Maybe it will never happen. But it should happen."
He said: "Did you here that Jim Benedetto said that CGWs shouldn't hold their breath hoping to get green cards?"
She said: "Yeah. He's been pretty consistent over the years in saying that workers shouldn't count on the hope that they'll get green cards."
He said: "OK, but let's forget for a minute about whether it's likely that CGWs will eventually be able to apply for green cards. If they were allowed to apply for green cards, would it be good for the CNMI?"
She said: "I guess that depends on who you are. It would be good for you if you were a foreign worker."
He said: "OK, but what if you were a business owner?"
She said: "Wouldn't most business owners prefer the way things were before the federalization law passed?"
He said: "Maybe, but that's not an option anymore. The feds have made it clear that the CNMI will eventually have to phase out its guest worker program and just follow the federal rules. They'll probably extend the phase-out for at least five years after 2014, maybe more. But eventually it will be phased out."
She said: "So what's your point?"
He said: "The only hope in the long term of business owners being able to keep their best CGWs is to give them green cards. Otherwise, they'll eventually have to leave."
She said: "But if you give them green cards, they can go to Guam or Hawaii or California."
He said: "Yeah, but if you don't give them green cards, they'll eventually have to leave unless they can qualify for a visa under U.S. standards, and some people--although I don't know if I trust these particular people--are saying that most CGWs probably can't. If these people are right, then giving CGWs green cards is the only hope under the new law of being able to keep the best long-term employees. If you're an employer, wouldn't you rather have a chance of keeping your long-term workers, even if they suddenly had more bargaining power and you had to pay them more, than not having a chance to keep them?"
She said: "I guess, but I'd probably like the old system even better."
He said: "Like I said, that's not an option. That's why giving CGWs green cards is probably the best option now for employers."
She said: "What about criminals and people like that."
He said: "They wouldn't qualify. You'd have to meet certain standards, and it would only be a one-time thing for workers who have already been here for, say, five years."
She said: "What about from the standpoint of locals? Do we want Filipinos to take control over our islands?"
He said: "Well, for one thing, that could already happen when their U.S. citizen children are old enough to vote. But if you give them green cards, a lot would leave."
She said: "Well, how would it help the locals?"
He said: "It would help the locals if you didn't have all of this cheap labor. The way things have been, pay is too low outside of government if you're a local, and in order to get a job in government, you have to kiss up to whoever's in power. If you changed the system, maybe locals who have left will come home, and maybe a lot of CGWs would leave to find better opportunities stateside. Businesses would have a shot at keeping the CGWs that they want to keep, but they'd have to compete for them just like employers have to do in Guam."
She said: "Well, I don't think it's going to happen. And also, those workers signed a contract and it was always understood that they would have to go home."
He said: "I know. I'm not saying that it's going to happen. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. And I'm not saying that the workers are entitled to get green cards. I'm just saying that if they did get green cards, maybe it would be the best thing for the CNMI, including the locals and the business owners. And maybe if we all recognized that this would be good for all of us, then we could really unite as a community--locals, businesses, CGWs, even the human rights activists--and lobby for it in Washington. And maybe if we all speak with one voice, rather than contradict each other like we usually do, they'll actually take us seriously for a change."
She said: "Well, if you could get the Chamber and Wendy Doromal and Taotao Tano all holding hands and pushing for this in DC, that might make an impression. But it will never happen."
He said: "Maybe it will never happen. But it should happen."
Jun 13, 2008
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....
"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....
May 28, 2008
CGW Days are Numbered
Now that the CNMI's Labor and Immigration system will be under the Federal management, the buzz around the island is that the Labor Department has been very busy looking at the contract workers or foreign national workers' documents submitted to their office when they were hired to work in the CNMI from the beginning.
I've heard at least three cases where the Labor has deported recently one contract worker due to false documents submitted to the department when he was hired to work here years ago. One has a pending labor hearing case due to a fraudulent employment certificate submitted to the employer. The contract worker submitted his employment certificate from his/her country of origin that was actually non-existent. However, the employer went to the hearing and backed the contract worker for his/her competence at work, despite the major "glitch."
The Labor is deemed serious into verifying the documents submitted to them.
Now the question to the employers, if you found out that your best employee falsified documents, would you retain him/her?
I've heard at least three cases where the Labor has deported recently one contract worker due to false documents submitted to the department when he was hired to work here years ago. One has a pending labor hearing case due to a fraudulent employment certificate submitted to the employer. The contract worker submitted his employment certificate from his/her country of origin that was actually non-existent. However, the employer went to the hearing and backed the contract worker for his/her competence at work, despite the major "glitch."
The Labor is deemed serious into verifying the documents submitted to them.
Now the question to the employers, if you found out that your best employee falsified documents, would you retain him/her?
Apr 30, 2008
A Case of She Said, She Said
Deputy Secretary of Labor Cinta Kaipat has blasted Rep. Tina Sablan's bill to grant enhanced status under CNMI law to long-term guest workers. Here is one of many criticisms that Kaipat leveled against the bill, as reported in the Saipan Tribune:
“This bill is lopsided special interest pleading in favor of the foreign workers. The drafter of the bill has no interest in the plight of Commonwealth citizens who are out of work,” [Kaipat] said. Kaipat said a move to bring 20,000 aliens into a new “status” in the CNMI would cause a serious adverse reaction in Washington D.C. “This very large number would be a deliberate slap in the face to the authors of the federalization bill which rejected this very provision (status for persons who had been in the Commonwealth for five years) and instead used provisions that seek to deport all these people over the next five years. It might even invite even more punitive legislation in the next Congress,” Kaipat said.
Tina Sablan responded, as reported in the Marianas Variety:
“It is incorrect to suggest that the proposed resident foreign national program would result in a significant population increase,” [Sablan] said. “Current CNMI law allows foreign national workers who meet certain income requirements to bring in their immediate relatives; these same requirements would apply to resident foreign nationals who apply for resident foreign national status.”
She added, “As an attorney, former legislator, and current deputy secretary of Labor, Ms. Kaipat should know that her criticisms are legally insupportable.”
Since the name of our blog is Saipan MIDDLE Road, we have no strong opinions around here. We therefore would like to hear what you think of all of this.
“This bill is lopsided special interest pleading in favor of the foreign workers. The drafter of the bill has no interest in the plight of Commonwealth citizens who are out of work,” [Kaipat] said. Kaipat said a move to bring 20,000 aliens into a new “status” in the CNMI would cause a serious adverse reaction in Washington D.C. “This very large number would be a deliberate slap in the face to the authors of the federalization bill which rejected this very provision (status for persons who had been in the Commonwealth for five years) and instead used provisions that seek to deport all these people over the next five years. It might even invite even more punitive legislation in the next Congress,” Kaipat said.
Tina Sablan responded, as reported in the Marianas Variety:
“It is incorrect to suggest that the proposed resident foreign national program would result in a significant population increase,” [Sablan] said. “Current CNMI law allows foreign national workers who meet certain income requirements to bring in their immediate relatives; these same requirements would apply to resident foreign nationals who apply for resident foreign national status.”
She added, “As an attorney, former legislator, and current deputy secretary of Labor, Ms. Kaipat should know that her criticisms are legally insupportable.”
Since the name of our blog is Saipan MIDDLE Road, we have no strong opinions around here. We therefore would like to hear what you think of all of this.
Apr 1, 2008
Meeting to Explore Long-Term Resident Status Under CNMI Law
The following meeting announcement was placed as a comment to an earlier post, but we thought that it should be highlighted for those wishing to attend:
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The following members of the Unity Movement organizers core group, Malou Barueco; Bonnie Sagana of the Dekada Movement; Conrad Ocampo; and Ernest Maicle of MOVER wish to inform the public that there will be a forum on “Long-Term Resident Status: Issues and Possibilities for Change Under CNMI Law” at the Monte Carlo (across from Hopwood Jr. High School) at 6:30 pm, Wednesday, April 2, 2008.All interested foreign national workers, local workers and business people, representatives of the business community, local citizen action group members, and members of the general public, of all races and nationalities, are welcome to attend and participate in the discussion.
Anticipated speakers are Dekada Movement counsel Stephen C. Woodruff; well-known attorney Deanne Siemer (best known to workers and long-term alien residents of the CNMI, often controversially, as someone actively involved in labor and immigration matters, PL 15-108, and the new labor regulations); Maya Kara (president of the CNMI Bar Association, former acting Attorney General, former governor’s legal counsel, former lieutenant governor’s legal counsel, and former House Legal Counsel); and Greg Cruz, president of TaoTao Tano. Both Ms. Siemer and Ms. Kara emphasize that they are involved and will speak only for themselves, in their personal capacities, and not as representatives of the government, clients, or any special interest group.
Other speakers may be added, and there will be extensive opportunity for questions, answers, and general discussion.
This forum is NOT about “federalization.” It is NOT about minimum wage. It is NOT about PL 15-108. It is specifically recognized that all parties have their own views and positions on these topics, and agreed that all are free to advocate their positions outside the forum, but that, within the context of the forum, these issues will be put to the side and the focus will be exclusively on the question of long-term alien resident status.
A minimum donation of two dollars ($2.00) per person will be required at the door to cover the costs of use of the Monte Carlo facilities. The two dollar donation also entitles each person to one beverage from the house. Additional beverages may be purchased at usual Monte Carlo prices.
This is the third meeting on the Long-Term Resident status public discussion initiative. The first preliminary, exploratory meeting, involving only a very small group, was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, in the conference room of Atty. Steve Woodruff. The second meeting of 30 to 40 persons was Saturday, March 22, 2008, at the China House restaurant.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The following members of the Unity Movement organizers core group, Malou Barueco; Bonnie Sagana of the Dekada Movement; Conrad Ocampo; and Ernest Maicle of MOVER wish to inform the public that there will be a forum on “Long-Term Resident Status: Issues and Possibilities for Change Under CNMI Law” at the Monte Carlo (across from Hopwood Jr. High School) at 6:30 pm, Wednesday, April 2, 2008.All interested foreign national workers, local workers and business people, representatives of the business community, local citizen action group members, and members of the general public, of all races and nationalities, are welcome to attend and participate in the discussion.
Anticipated speakers are Dekada Movement counsel Stephen C. Woodruff; well-known attorney Deanne Siemer (best known to workers and long-term alien residents of the CNMI, often controversially, as someone actively involved in labor and immigration matters, PL 15-108, and the new labor regulations); Maya Kara (president of the CNMI Bar Association, former acting Attorney General, former governor’s legal counsel, former lieutenant governor’s legal counsel, and former House Legal Counsel); and Greg Cruz, president of TaoTao Tano. Both Ms. Siemer and Ms. Kara emphasize that they are involved and will speak only for themselves, in their personal capacities, and not as representatives of the government, clients, or any special interest group.
Other speakers may be added, and there will be extensive opportunity for questions, answers, and general discussion.
This forum is NOT about “federalization.” It is NOT about minimum wage. It is NOT about PL 15-108. It is specifically recognized that all parties have their own views and positions on these topics, and agreed that all are free to advocate their positions outside the forum, but that, within the context of the forum, these issues will be put to the side and the focus will be exclusively on the question of long-term alien resident status.
A minimum donation of two dollars ($2.00) per person will be required at the door to cover the costs of use of the Monte Carlo facilities. The two dollar donation also entitles each person to one beverage from the house. Additional beverages may be purchased at usual Monte Carlo prices.
This is the third meeting on the Long-Term Resident status public discussion initiative. The first preliminary, exploratory meeting, involving only a very small group, was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, in the conference room of Atty. Steve Woodruff. The second meeting of 30 to 40 persons was Saturday, March 22, 2008, at the China House restaurant.
Jan 31, 2008
Give Me A Chance...
Cliche as it may seem but this was the phrase that key officials of the CNMI government used and told hundreds of nonresident Filipino workers this week, that is to give the Reform Law a chance.
According to the news written by veteran labor reporter and former Marianas Variety assistant editor Haidee Eugenio, these officials said that the Public Law 15-108 is better than any law one could find in the world, including the United States. "…This is the best system there is," said Deanna Siemer, a volunteer attorney, told the Filipino workers, adding that guest workers should “give the new law a chance."
According to the news written by veteran labor reporter and former Marianas Variety assistant editor Haidee Eugenio, these officials said that the Public Law 15-108 is better than any law one could find in the world, including the United States. "…This is the best system there is," said Deanna Siemer, a volunteer attorney, told the Filipino workers, adding that guest workers should “give the new law a chance."
GMA News TV - Key officials of the US Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) government told about a hundred representatives of various Filipino groups on Saipan to give the new labor reform law a chance.
In a three-hour open forum on Tuesday night exclusively covered by GMANews.TV, the CNMI officials said Public Law 15-108 or the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 still allows foreign workers to transfer jobs through administrative orders and not necessarily through the filing of a labor complaint against their current employers.
The officials said the new law allows foreign workers to have part-time jobs of up to 32 hours a month, and provides more protection to guest workers than the current system.
Dec 28, 2007
No Stopping the Reform
It looks like there's no stopping the controversial CNMI Reform Law 15-108 this January 2008. I heard from people aka nonresident workers that trooped the Labor Office this week the officers from the department have been stressing to them the effective date of the law starting Tuesday next week.
I thought I read from somewhere that the implementation would be delayed due to a review by the Legislature. Well, I read wrong in that case. I need to increase the grade in this contact lenses.
I guess the nonresident workers would have to brace themselves for this change....
The Reveler
I thought I read from somewhere that the implementation would be delayed due to a review by the Legislature. Well, I read wrong in that case. I need to increase the grade in this contact lenses.
I guess the nonresident workers would have to brace themselves for this change....
The Reveler
May 17, 2007
Flaming?
Now wait a minute. No one's reacting to Bruce Bateman's column two days ago where he mentioned the man that set himself on fire as "Flaming Nepalese?"
Where's justice in this world.... ;-)
Here's his story form Saipan Tribune:
The Reveler
Where's justice in this world.... ;-)
Here's his story form Saipan Tribune:
And some just hide out in Afghanistan (or Pakistan or maybe Jerkistan) sucking on the remains of Hillbloom's money while bitching from afar about flaming Nepalese and other CNMI problems. I thank all of the above for reading The Saipan Tribune and especially for reading Sour Grapes. Let's find ways to work together to solve this looming problem.
The Reveler
Feb 25, 2007
Ms. Magazine's at it again!
Early this month, in time for the Feb. 8 hearing in Washington, D.C. on CNMI labor, immigration, law enforcement and economy, Ms. Magazine--the same national publication that carried a story in 2006 depicting Saipan as a "paradise lost" due to labor and immigration abuses, among other things--published online the story of Kayleen D. Entena. Entena, a young woman from the Philippines who was forced to work in a brothel in the CNMI, testified to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in support of bringing the CNMI under U.S. immigration control.
Ms. Magazine published online other stories about the CNMI early this month. Ms. magazine said its investigative report on the Mariana Islands brought these abuses to the nation's attention last spring and generated widespread public outrage. It revisited the 2006 article titled "Paradise Lost: Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists" by Rebecca Clarren.
For the complete text of these articles, visit www.msmagazine.com
But just like Ms. Magazine's 2006 article, its recent coverages have not elaborated on what CNMI and federal government agencies have done to help reduce labor and immigration abuses in the past years.
Ms. Magazine published online other stories about the CNMI early this month. Ms. magazine said its investigative report on the Mariana Islands brought these abuses to the nation's attention last spring and generated widespread public outrage. It revisited the 2006 article titled "Paradise Lost: Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists" by Rebecca Clarren.
For the complete text of these articles, visit www.msmagazine.com
But just like Ms. Magazine's 2006 article, its recent coverages have not elaborated on what CNMI and federal government agencies have done to help reduce labor and immigration abuses in the past years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)