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.