Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 334

Thread: Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

  1. #131
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

    Here are her official comments about the matter:

    From her website:
    Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

    From a speech at UC Davis:
    We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

    From her campaign brochure:
    [To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

    At the Cal State Fresno debate:
    If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

    Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?
    that is nonsense. You are intentionally twisting her positions.

    For example what exactly is wrong with opposing any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.???

    In that paragraph you chose selectively to only pick out this sentence, I call foul!

    In addition to that one sentence you picked out it goes on to say:

    "In addition to putting more resources at the border, Meg believes that the Federal Government and California need to work together to establish a system that allows employers to better verify the immigration status of their workers."

    why didn't you include that part?

    Do you have transcripts of the speeches that you cite so that we may see what else you omitted?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #132
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

    Here are her official comments about the matter:

    ntsFrom her website:
    Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requireme.

    From a speech at UC Davis:
    We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

    From her campaign brochure:
    [To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

    At the Cal State Fresno debate:
    If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

    Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?

    Of course, the issue of her not firing the woman once questions were raised, and not turning the woman in as soon as she knew, are additional problems for her politically - problems she's either incapable of or unwilling to address.

    It'll be her doom.

    Not that I really care. IMO, she's a moron.




    BINGO and congratulations: You're smarter than Meg Whitman.

    Still not seeing where she wants to prosecute employers who have all the documents.



    She says she won't weaken laws. The laws I found didn't talk of fining those who had the needed documents.

    She was not required by law to turn her in. She did what she felt was the right thing and says if she had it to do over she would do the same.

    If you were so serious about someone being held accountable for the crimes Nicky commited why are you only picking on Meg and not the agency? Nicky's the only criminal here.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    She's NOT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION. This is why she's an idiot. She's not focusing on the ONE thing that would make her own situation less politically damaging - the fact that she followed the right steps to avoid hiring an illegal.

    Here are her official comments about the matter:

    From her website:
    Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

    From a speech at UC Davis:
    We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.

    From her campaign brochure:
    [To] institute a system where state and local law enforcement agencies conduct inspections of workplaces suspected of employing undocumented workers.

    At the Cal State Fresno debate:
    If we don't hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem.

    Do you see anything in there that gives an out to employers who find themselves in the same situation she's currently floundering around in?

    What position is she in, exactly? She hired through an agency which adhered to the law. The woman had fraudulent documents. Knowingly hiring illegals is one issue, which Whitman has addressed and you have singled out. Fraud perpetrated by an individual worker is an entirely different issue which you seem to want to pin on her.

    Of course, the issue of her not firing the woman once questions were raised, and not turning the woman in as soon as she knew, are additional problems for her politically - problems she's either incapable of or unwilling to address.

    It'll be her doom.

    Not that I really care. IMO, she's a moron.
    Well glad we cleared up one thing: you want to think of her as a moron and you don't care about facts. Good, that's nothing we didn't already know.

  4. #134
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Here, I'll spell it out nice and simple for you:

    Meg Whitman isn't campaigning to prosecute only those who KNOWINGLY hiring illegals.

    She wants to prosecute ANYONE that hires an illegal for ANY reason; whether they knew the person was illegal or not. You know, JUST LIKE HER.
    Unless you're basing this on some other statement she made, that's very obviously not what she is saying. Nothing in the statements you've quoted indicates that she thinks employers who follow the proper steps to verify their employee's records should be punished if the employee turns out to have committed fraud.

    NOW do you get it? She's a hypocrite, and an ignorant one, at that.
    What is it with people misusing the word "hypocrite" lately?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #135
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    I don't care what the woman's position is on hiring illegals. My point is, she's doing a piss-poor job of managing a PR crisis, and that makes her a moron.

    From her website:
    Meg will oppose any attempt by the Legislature to weaken employer verification requirements.

    From a speech at UC Davis:
    We do have to hold employers accountable for hiring only documented workers, and we do have to enforce that law.
    Further, there is simply no other way to read/parse the above sentences than to accept that:

    1. She will fight against any lessening of existing employer verification requirements, putting the onus entirely on the employer as to verifying an employee's work status.

    2. Employers will be held accountable "for hiring ONLY documented workers," and those who do not will be prosecuted.

    Despite the fact that she hired the woman in good faith, she learned (TWO years after hiring the woman) that there was a problem when she received a letter from the Social Security Administration telling her that the Social Security number that her housekeeper provided belonged to someone else. What did she do once she got that letter?

    Gave it to the housekeeper for followup, and continued to employ her for another seven years. (Note: Telling someone else to "please check this" is not considered an adequate legal defense. Nor will it get you far in the world of politics.)

    This is what the CA Labor & Immigration Law website has to say about such letters (and they BOLD this portion):

    Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company.
    Meg is both culpable and liable according to law, and despite the desperate attempts by Whitman supporters to change the subject and make Allred or Brown the issue, they aren't the issue.

    The issue is Whitman's honesty, ethics, integrity and character, all of which are highly questionable.

  6. #136
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    I don't care what the woman's position is on hiring illegals. My point is, she's doing a piss-poor job of managing a PR crisis, and that makes her a moron.
    You think she's a moron because she's doing a piss-poor job of managing this.
    You think she's doing a piss-poor job managing this because you think she's wrong.
    You think she's wrong because you're mistaken about the facts of the case, the legal issues, and what Whitman is saying.

    Further, there is simply no other way to read/parse the above sentences than to accept that:

    1. She will fight against any lessening of existing employer verification requirements, putting the onus entirely on the employer as to verifying an employee's work status.

    2. Employers will be held accountable "for hiring ONLY documented workers," and those who do not will be prosecuted.
    I just can't fathom how you think that. Absolutely nothing about either of those statements indicates that she believes employers who follow the rules should nevertheless be liable for employee fraud. If you think that she actually believes that, you should be able to find evidence of it (beyond an out-of-context sentence that doesn't actually say that).

    Despite the fact that she hired the woman in good faith, she learned (TWO years after hiring the woman) that there was a problem when she received a letter from the Social Security Administration telling her that the Social Security number that her housekeeper provided belonged to someone else. What did she do once she got that letter?

    Gave it to the housekeeper for followup, and continued to employ her for another seven years. (Note: Telling someone else to "please check this" is not considered an adequate legal defense. Nor will it get you far in the world of politics.)
    If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that this has already been explained.

    Whitman within law, immigration lawyers say

    Whether or not Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman received a letter from the Social Security Administration saying her former housekeeper's false documents did not match its records, Whitman did not act unlawfully by keeping the housekeeper employed, immigration lawyers said Thursday. In fact, had she gone ahead and fired Nicandra Diaz Santillan based on such a letter, she would have exposed herself to potential anti-discrimination violations, lawyers said.

    ...


    Lawyers said an employer's obligation upon receiving a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration is to check their own records for typographical or other errors, inform the employee that the records do not match and tell the employee to correct them. "There is no additional legal obligation for an employer to follow up or respond to SSA with new information," said Gening Liao, a labor and employment attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, which defends immigrants

    ...

    Nor was Diaz under any obligation to pursue the matter, Liao said. Correcting a mismatch is "primarily for the benefit of the employee," she said, to make sure they can collect all the benefits due them for their work.
    I'm going to trust the opinion of immigration lawyers who are discussing this actual case over your interpretation of one portion of a law.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #137
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company. --CA Labor & Immigration Law

  8. #138
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Ignoring these letters or any other evidence which raise questions about an employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. can create civil and criminal liability to you and your company. --CA Labor & Immigration Law
    Do you really not see the difference between specific conclusions being offered by lawyers who are discussing this particular case and vague, open-ended language from a lawyer who is speaking in generalities?

    It's possible that ignoring mismatch letters or other evidence could create civil or criminal liability. However, according to experts who have looked at this case, Whitman's actions in regards to this particular letter satisfied every aspect of the law.

    I understand that you desperately want Whitman to be wrong here, but I think your position is entirely indefensible.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #139
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

    If you can't see that this whole flap was created by the Brown camp you are really of questionable mental judgment.

    There is no ****ing way little Nicky would use the words or terms she used it her clearly orchestrated TV appearance with Gloria Allwet.

  10. #140
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: get out the Nutella. This chick's toast.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Do you really not see the difference between specific conclusions being offered by lawyers who are discussing this particular case and vague, open-ended language from a lawyer who is speaking in generalities?

    It's possible that ignoring mismatch letters or other evidence could create civil or criminal liability. However, according to experts who have looked at this case, Whitman's actions in regards to this particular letter satisfied every aspect of the law.

    I understand that you desperately want Whitman to be wrong here, but I think your position is entirely indefensible.
    I don't give a rat's ass about Whitman (OR what you think). She's managing her campaign like a moron, and her ethics/integrity are crap. She's a loser by every definition that actually matters.

Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •