• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

I don't think she much cared about the person's legal status as long as they provided cheap labor.

Niki was paid $23 an hour 15hrs a week whether she actually worked the whole 15 or not. She had paid vacations, paid maternity leave. She also had flexible hrs to where she could work when she wanted. I think an American would do that job.
I watched the press conference and am convinced Meg Whitman did nothing wrong.
The only thing close were the people who thought that with her means, she should have paid for an immigration attorney for the woman. Whitman said Niki lied to her for 9 yrs. had broken the law and she did what she felt was right. That was letting her go, not turning her into ICE, and not drawing attention to her.
For those saying she only fired her because she was running for office is wrong. She joined the race in Feb. and didn't fire her until June.
She hired a new maid from the same agency. She said the agency was not at fault and did everything possible to make sure their employees were legal. If the agency was fooled, how can anyone say Whitman should have been more thorough in checking her immigration status?
Also when asked if she would take a poligraph, there was no hesitation when she she would be more than willing.
Whitman came across very honest and made me think a lot more of her. I wasn't that impressed with her before. I hope stomps Jerry Brown.
 
I didn't see this posted yet.

It is very possible Whitman did not know her personal employee was illegal, but the story may damage her campaign anyway.


Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper - Video - FoxNews.com

If she knowingly hired an illegal and fired that illegal when when it became politically inconvenient then she pulled an Obama, of course unlike Obama the media hates anyone who is anti-illegal immigration. Of course if she hired her through a legitimate agency then one would assume that they did all the checks they were supposed to do and that these claims made by her former housekeeper are nothing more than a pissed off former employee with a grudge trying to ruin her former employer.
 
Supposedly they received a letter about the housekeeper's possible illegality in 2003. The husband may or may not have actually written a note on that letter and given it to the housekeeper.

Lowellsun.com8

The problem with stories like this is that it doesn't even matter if they're true. People are reading these headlines now and that's what makes an impression. Even if retractions are later printed, they're buried on page 9e and nobody reads them anyway.
 
Supposedly they received a letter about the housekeeper's possible illegality in 2003. The husband may or may not have actually written a note on that letter and given it to the housekeeper.

Lowellsun.com8

Even that isn't really anything:

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.

...

The problem with stories like this is that it doesn't even matter if they're true. People are reading these headlines now and that's what makes an impression. Even if retractions are later printed, they're buried on page 9e and nobody reads them anyway.

Completely true, which is of course what Allred was going for. One day after the story broke, SEIU put up a $5m spanish language ad buy to attack Whitman on it.
 
Doesn't matter. The reason she might not have known that her housekeeper was illegal is because she probably broke the law. Let me explain - For more than 10 years, it has been a requirement for employers to verify that prospective employees are in the United States legally. This consists of completing an I-9 form on each and every employee that you hire. This also includes housekeepers. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and if Whitman did not verify her employee, before hiring her, she has no excuse either. In fact, she should know better. Wasn't she the CEO of a major company?

Wait...Whitman went through an agency to hire the the nanny. I would imagine the agency was responsible for the verification of her documents.
 
As far as I can tell, in this incident Whitman did nothing I disagree with, and several things I approve of.
 
Wait...Whitman went through an agency to hire the the nanny. I would imagine the agency was responsible for the verification of her documents.

And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.
 
Last edited:
I don't think she much cared about the person's legal status as long as they provided cheap labor.

yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor
 
Actually TMZ has the documents and have posted them showing that the maid did provide an I9, W4, SSN card and drivers license. Basically, you have a maid that, apparently lied about her imigration status, committed identity theft and, when the maid finally came clean, was fired. After being fired, and apparently for political reasons, she went to Allred (who has a history of this) and filed a complaint.

Allred is an opportunistic parasite IMHO. that she is involved in this case proves that this is the work of leftwing schemers
 
Here's an idea - Let's get a long list of ALL Congress Persons and Senators and see who they have working as Nanny's Cooks, Gardeners, Housekeepers, Chauffers etc. Girl Friends,Boyfriends optional and get verification as to all these folks Legal status. It might be interesting.
 
And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.

I think the agency did everything they could at the time. They obtained all required documents. If they had gone much further - keeping in mind that E-Verify was not yet available in California - I have little doubt they would have been acused of violating rights of the maid.
 
yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor

23 an hour is what we pay our helpdesk technicians once they get 3 certifications. That's a pretty decent salary for a nanny, I think.
 
23 an hour is what we pay our helpdesk technicians once they get 3 certifications. That's a pretty decent salary for a nanny, I think.

my thoughts exactly. that wasn't bad for someone graduating from a top 10 law school who went to a market other than NYC or LA or Boston in the mid 80s
 
And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.

It wasn't necessarily the agency's fault either, even if the woman was illegal. If she had paperwork that looked authentic and the agency reported the documents properly on an I9 form, that's all they were required to do.
 
Last edited:
yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor

Then again Whitman is a billionaire.
 
Then again Whitman is a billionaire.

so what-she paid what appears to be a generous wage. YOu think Jerry Brown's hurting for bucks
 
What's damning? This is damning.

This to a woman who worked in her home for nine years and had the temerity to ask for help.

**** you, Meg Whitman!
To be precise, you quoted incorrectly. That statement is not conclusively known to have been made by Whitman, it was only claimed by the maid to have been made to the maid by Whitman. Mwahahaha, isn't the english language fun?

The relavant piece from the story you linked:
Diaz Santillan alleges that Whitman fired her in a phone call, saying: "From now on you don't know me, and I don't know you. You never have seen me and I have never seen you. Do you understand me?" With that, according to Diaz Santillan, Whitman hung up.
 
Last edited:
so what-she paid what appears to be a generous wage.

Spoken like one more person who obviously doesn't live in expensive-ass California. What is generous about paying more or less what it would cost to have a 24 hour daycare that also cooks and cleans, your house?
 
Spoken like one more person who obviously doesn't live in expensive-ass California. What is generous about paying more or less what it would cost to have a 24 hour daycare that also cooks and cleans, your house?

yawn-23 bucks an hour is hardly pauper wages and its expensive because of all the liberal bs out there
 
yawn-23 bucks an hour is hardly pauper wages and its expensive because of all the liberal bs out there

Irrelevant. answer the question. What is so generous about paying $23 an hour in California? You act like Whitman was some sort of patron saint. She's a billionaire who was paying what is essentially the bare minimum for somebody who cooks, cleans and takes care of your kids. End of story. Thanks for playing.
 
Irrelevant. answer the question. What is so generous about paying $23 an hour in California? You act like Whitman was some sort of patron saint. She's a billionaire who was paying what is essentially the bare minimum for somebody who cooks, cleans and takes care of your kids. End of story. Thanks for playing.

my point is that there is nothing that the moonbats can use against Whitman validly on this issue
 
Irrelevant. answer the question. What is so generous about paying $23 an hour in California? You act like Whitman was some sort of patron saint. She's a billionaire who was paying what is essentially the bare minimum for somebody who cooks, cleans and takes care of your kids. End of story. Thanks for playing.

That's a pretty generous wage for a menial laborer. Like I said, skilled technicians get paid that here in LA. And I am perfectly comfortable with paying them that salary.
 
Back
Top Bottom