Kaipat says dialogues continue on new labor regs
Thursday, 11 September 2008 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Variety News Staff
E-mail Print PDF
DEPUTY Labor Secretary Cinta Kaipat says she finds some of the implementating regulations for the new labor law, P.L. 15-108, to be working well while others need to be improved.
Kaipat said the concerns raised during the recently held dialogues were “valid” and “well articulated.”
The Department of Labor, she added, will come up with a “compromise” and make the necessary changes to improve the law’s implementing regulations and make them “more workable” especially for the guest workers and their employers.
“We would improve the law to the best that we can for the betterment of the community,” Kaipat told Variety, adding that the dialogues with the different sectors of the community will continue.
Initially, she said, they collected “good” feedback from the community members who are directly affected by the law.
During the two scheduled dialogues last week, the department met with members of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce, lawyers representing guest workers, the federal labor ombudsman and representatives of various organizations.
Kaipat said they have a “very fruitful meeting” with the participants, some of whom were concerned about the 30-day transfer rule that allows displaced guest workers to seek new employment.
Other issues raised include the 20 percent requirement for local employment and the immigration status of spouses of Freely Associated States citizens.
Guest workers, Kaipat said, said the 30-day period is too short considering the lengthy process of registering with the Division of Employment Services and the evaluation of the transfer applications.
Under the Nonresident Workers Act and its implementating regulations, “complainants are granted transfer if they are found to be less at fault than their employers with respect to the issue that gave rise to the filing of the complaint.”
But if a complainant fails to have an employer intent form filed within the 30-day period, he or she will be required to depart from the CNMI at the expense of his or her latest employer.
Representatives of guest workers asked the department to “compromise” on the 30-day period, Kaipat said, adding that they have yet to gather all the suggestions and recommendations on how to improve P.L. 15-108.
“Our goal is to listen and see what ideas they will have to suggest ways that we can improve the regulations,” she said.
There’s no scheduled dialogue this week but the department will continue to gather comments so it can evaluate to determine what initiatives are workable before Labor drafts a final report and submit it to the Legislature, Kaipat said.
“I don’t want P.L. 15-108 to become like its predecessors which were amended piece meal, left and right, to the point where loopholes were created because different components did not fit together,” she said. “What we would do is to give it flexibility to make it better serve the needs of the community.”
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Labor: $4.4M yearly in lost income under federalization
By Agnes E. Donato
Reporter
The Department of Labor says the Commonwealth will lose about $4.4 million a year once the federal government takes over the local labor system.
Cinta M. Kaipat, deputy secretary of labor, said the department projects that it can generate about $6.1 million in revenues in the 2009 fiscal year and in each subsequent year. Factoring in its annual budget of $1.7 million, the Labor Department would bring in a net $4.4 million, or an average of $350,000 to $400,000 every month to government coffers.
“If federal officials are allowed to take over our labor functions, PL 110-229 is very specific; we will lose all labor revenues,” Kaipat said in a letter to the Legislature. “So come June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth will be short some $400,000 every month in its budget.”
But some lawmakers are not convinced by the department's claim.
Rep. Diego T. Benavente, chairman of the House Committee on Federal and Foreign Relations, said the “federalization” of labor and immigration will save the government some money as well.
“There will be some offsetting of what money we'll lose with what we will save from not having to deal with the foreign workers,” said Benavente, whose committee is drafting a legislative report on the administration's plan to sue the U.S. government over the new immigration law.
Rep. Tina Sablan, a supporter of federalization, echoed Benavente's statement and urged the Labor Department to provide lawmakers with a detailed computation of potential savings from federalization.
“Until we get a more balanced picture of what the impact will, I will consider this claim as nothing more than propaganda designed to get us to support the lawsuit,” she said.
In her letter, Kaipat said the Labor Department is able to generate money faster now more than ever. The new automated processing system allows the department to collect fees faster. Fines are being collected from the old labor cases that have been resolved recently. And a more efficient “barred list” process ensures that employers who owe fines do not get services from the Labor Department until those fines are paid.
At the same time, Kaipat said, Labor has taken steps to streamline its operations. A new website has been installed to cut costs. Personnel are being cross-trained so that every staff member can do at least two jobs.
Kaipat said all the revenue generated by the Labor Department will be lost once federalization goes into effect. “There will be no negotiating about this loss of revenue. It has been commanded by Congress,” she said.
Unlike in Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, federally collected fees will not be turned over the Commonwealth government, she added.
Labor: $4.4M yearly in lost income under federalization
By Agnes E. Donato
Reporter
The Department of Labor says the Commonwealth will lose about $4.4 million a year once the federal government takes over the local labor system.
Cinta M. Kaipat, deputy secretary of labor, said the department projects that it can generate about $6.1 million in revenues in the 2009 fiscal year and in each subsequent year. Factoring in its annual budget of $1.7 million, the Labor Department would bring in a net $4.4 million, or an average of $350,000 to $400,000 every month to government coffers.
“If federal officials are allowed to take over our labor functions, PL 110-229 is very specific; we will lose all labor revenues,” Kaipat said in a letter to the Legislature. “So come June 1, 2009, the Commonwealth will be short some $400,000 every month in its budget.”
But some lawmakers are not convinced by the department's claim.
Rep. Diego T. Benavente, chairman of the House Committee on Federal and Foreign Relations, said the “federalization” of labor and immigration will save the government some money as well.
“There will be some offsetting of what money we'll lose with what we will save from not having to deal with the foreign workers,” said Benavente, whose committee is drafting a legislative report on the administration's plan to sue the U.S. government over the new immigration law.
Rep. Tina Sablan, a supporter of federalization, echoed Benavente's statement and urged the Labor Department to provide lawmakers with a detailed computation of potential savings from federalization.
“Until we get a more balanced picture of what the impact will, I will consider this claim as nothing more than propaganda designed to get us to support the lawsuit,” she said.
In her letter, Kaipat said the Labor Department is able to generate money faster now more than ever. The new automated processing system allows the department to collect fees faster. Fines are being collected from the old labor cases that have been resolved recently. And a more efficient “barred list” process ensures that employers who owe fines do not get services from the Labor Department until those fines are paid.
At the same time, Kaipat said, Labor has taken steps to streamline its operations. A new website has been installed to cut costs. Personnel are being cross-trained so that every staff member can do at least two jobs.
Kaipat said all the revenue generated by the Labor Department will be lost once federalization goes into effect. “There will be no negotiating about this loss of revenue. It has been commanded by Congress,” she said.
Unlike in Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, federally collected fees will not be turned over the Commonwealth government, she added.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
'950 alien workers unaccounted for'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
There are about 950 alien workers in the CNMI who could not be accounted for and are therefore considered overstayers, according to a CNMI Labor Department official.
Deanne Siemer, volunteer consultant and Labor administrative hearing officer, said these 950 people came to the CNMI legally and are still here, but they do not have current status to remain and have been published as overstayers.
“If these people are picked up by Immigration, they will be deported,” she said.
Siemer said the number is an estimate until Labor gets all the annual reviews done by Oct. 30, 2008.
She disclosed the number of alleged overstayers during Thursday's meeting with officials and representatives of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce and Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands at Labor's conference room.
The meeting, which is one of a series, was held to obtain input from the community on what amendments Labor can propose to the controversial Public Law 15-108, or the new reform labor law.
“A lot of the people that folks see in what they think is the underground economy are people who actually have jobs and are working two jobs, three jobs and the second or third jobs maybe illegal. That is, they have no permit for that, they may not have registered. The employer is entirely illegal. But that person actually does have a job,” said Siemer.
She said there have been estimates over the years that there are 8,000 overstayers in the CNMI, but none of these are hard facts.
Labor officials explained in the meeting that the computer systems at Labor back in the '90s were very different from the one Labor is using now.
Siemer said it is possible that there are more people out there who came into the Commonwealth during the 1980s or 1990s and never worked in 2000 and thereafter.
“If someone has been illegal for 10 years or more, it will take more time to find them,” she said.
Federal immigration authorities, Siemer said, will clearly have the funds that would enable them to go back to the 1980s and 1990s records and find these people.
“Anyone who has been illegal that long is very likely to be deported by the federal authorities as soon as they are found. The Commonwealth estimates that there are relatively few people in this class,” she said.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial had asked Labor and the Immigration Division to determine how many overstayers were, in fact, in the CNMI.
To determine the number of overstayers, Labor reviews all its actions during each quarter and determines who should have left the Commonwealth.
These are people whose labor cases are finished, whose contracts have terminated, whose appeals have been denied and so on.
A Labor employee then consults the Border Management System and finds out who did leave. The remaining people are put on the quarterly overstayer list.
The overstayer list is published in the newspapers for two consecutive weeks, and people are given the opportunity to come in to Labor and correct the records.
Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat certifies the corrected quarterly list and sends it to the Immigration Division.
'950 alien workers unaccounted for'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
There are about 950 alien workers in the CNMI who could not be accounted for and are therefore considered overstayers, according to a CNMI Labor Department official.
Deanne Siemer, volunteer consultant and Labor administrative hearing officer, said these 950 people came to the CNMI legally and are still here, but they do not have current status to remain and have been published as overstayers.
“If these people are picked up by Immigration, they will be deported,” she said.
Siemer said the number is an estimate until Labor gets all the annual reviews done by Oct. 30, 2008.
She disclosed the number of alleged overstayers during Thursday's meeting with officials and representatives of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce and Hotel Association of the Northern Mariana Islands at Labor's conference room.
The meeting, which is one of a series, was held to obtain input from the community on what amendments Labor can propose to the controversial Public Law 15-108, or the new reform labor law.
“A lot of the people that folks see in what they think is the underground economy are people who actually have jobs and are working two jobs, three jobs and the second or third jobs maybe illegal. That is, they have no permit for that, they may not have registered. The employer is entirely illegal. But that person actually does have a job,” said Siemer.
She said there have been estimates over the years that there are 8,000 overstayers in the CNMI, but none of these are hard facts.
Labor officials explained in the meeting that the computer systems at Labor back in the '90s were very different from the one Labor is using now.
Siemer said it is possible that there are more people out there who came into the Commonwealth during the 1980s or 1990s and never worked in 2000 and thereafter.
“If someone has been illegal for 10 years or more, it will take more time to find them,” she said.
Federal immigration authorities, Siemer said, will clearly have the funds that would enable them to go back to the 1980s and 1990s records and find these people.
“Anyone who has been illegal that long is very likely to be deported by the federal authorities as soon as they are found. The Commonwealth estimates that there are relatively few people in this class,” she said.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial had asked Labor and the Immigration Division to determine how many overstayers were, in fact, in the CNMI.
To determine the number of overstayers, Labor reviews all its actions during each quarter and determines who should have left the Commonwealth.
These are people whose labor cases are finished, whose contracts have terminated, whose appeals have been denied and so on.
A Labor employee then consults the Border Management System and finds out who did leave. The remaining people are put on the quarterly overstayer list.
The overstayer list is published in the newspapers for two consecutive weeks, and people are given the opportunity to come in to Labor and correct the records.
Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat certifies the corrected quarterly list and sends it to the Immigration Division.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Differences in Labor Policies
Policy differences with Rep. Sablan
Dear Representative Sablan:
You and I have vastly different positions with respect to labor policies in the Commonwealth. I spent over five years at the Labor Department as a hearing officer. My experience in handling cases involving both local and foreign employers and foreign workers persuaded me that our guest worker system was being manipulated by employers and employees in ways that were unfair to our U.S. citizen workers and were bringing discredit to the Commonwealth. I spent two years as a member of the 15th Legislature getting a comprehensive labor reform bill passed, which was signed into law as P.L. 15-108 last November. I have spent the last six months as Deputy Secretary of Labor implementing this law and working to make our system better. I strongly disagree with the labor policies you advocate, and I have said so publicly. It is regrettable that you have now chosen to attack me personally because of our differences over labor policies.
I make the following observations so we are clear about what those differences are:
OVERSTAYERS: You believe that foreign workers who have not been renewed by the employer who brought them to the Commonwealth, and who cannot find an employer to whom to transfer, should be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth as unemployed persons. I disagree with your position. Since 1983, our guest worker laws have required that aliens who come to the Commonwealth remain productively employed. There are good policy reasons for this requirement. Unemployed foreign workers require social services that create a financial burden on the Commonwealth; they often work without permits and undermine legitimate businesses that comply with the law and hire U.S. citizen workers. For that reason, the Labor Department publishes Overstayer Lists so that persons who are affected may come forward to correct the record or leave the Commonwealth voluntarily so as to preserve their right to re-enter.
NO-JOB SPONSORSHIPS: You believe that if a foreign worker pays to make an arrangement under which someone sponsors that worker by saying they are “employed”-although the sponsor has no real job for that worker and that worker does no real work for that sponsor-that the worker should be able to remain in the Commonwealth. I disagree with your position. “No-job sponsorships” are a fraud on the Commonwealth. In 2008 alone, the Director of Labor has denied about 1,000 applications, many for “no-job sponsorships.” Under a typical “no-job sponsorship” arrangement, the foreign worker pays the Labor Department fees, pays the bonding fee (for a bond that may not exist), and pays phantom taxes on wages not paid so that the Department of Finance will not crack down on the employer. The foreign worker then goes into the underground economy and finds his or her own job, or simply “retires” to live with a spouse or partner who works. The people who engage in “no-job sponsorships” on both the employer side and the worker side have evaded Commonwealth law, made false statements to the department, and sometimes testified falsely under oath. The Commonwealth's purpose in permitting guest workers to enter to work is to support the economy. People who engage in “no-job sponsorships” undermine that purpose; they do not support the economy. They simply seek the privilege of residence in the Commonwealth for which many, if not most, cannot qualify under visa rules.
TRANSFERS: You believe that there should be a “free market” in which there is no approval required when a foreign worker transfers from one job to another, so that a foreign worker can basically set up a new business and work for himself or herself if they want to do that. I disagree with your position. Under P.L. 15-108, all transfers must be approved by a hearing officer. The requirement of a careful but speedy review is very important in assuring that each foreign worker has a legitimate job with an employer who does not have past problems that might lead to taking advantage of the worker. Since the implementation of P.L. 15-108 in January 2008, this review process has resulted in numerous transfers being denied after a hearing on the ground that the proposed transfer did not comply with Commonwealth law. These transfer denials may involve illegal conduct on the part of the employer, the worker, or both. Every worker whose transfer is affected by reasons having to do with an ineligible employer is given another opportunity to find a suitable employer and transfer. There are good policy reasons for the requirement of administrative review of transfers. Transfers to employers who have previously exploited workers or who have no financial means to pay the worker is likely to lead to more labor complaints in the future, which require the department's resources to adjudicate.
PERMANENT RESIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WORK STATUS: You believe that foreign workers who have been in the Commonwealth for more than five years, regardless of whether they have worked during that time, should have permanent residence in the Commonwealth. You even introduced a bill to try to achieve such objective. I disagree with your position, and the Labor Department strongly opposed your bill. I firmly believe that the House's 15-2 decision to adopt the Committee Report to shelve your bill last Friday, August 22, 2008, is the right decision.
FOREIGN WORKERS WITH U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN: You believe that any foreign worker who is given permission to enter the Commonwealth to work and has a child while in the Commonwealth should be given a free pass to remain in the Commonwealth forever. I disagree with your position. The U.S. does not allow this, nor does any other country. Why, then, should the Commonwealth allow this? The citizenship of children does not affect the work status of their parents.
FEDERALIZATION: You believe the federal government will solve our problems in the guest worker area. I disagree with your position. Our experience with the federal government during Trust Territory times-not all that long ago-was very disappointing. The U.S. has a very substantial guest worker problem of its own, which it has not yet solved. Immigration reform is stalled in the U.S. There is no reason to believe that federal officials are more capable than Commonwealth officials with respect to running the labor system in the Commonwealth. In my view, federalization will hurt foreign workers. They will be deported without regard to their contribution to the Commonwealth, and they cannot qualify for U.S. visas. You know that the availability of H visas will expire quite quickly by 2014 and then the Commonwealth will be competing against the entire continental U.S. for these visas. That does not hold out the prospect for more than a very few foreign workers to remain in the Commonwealth. The federal officials from DHS who visited recently expressed little likelihood that the U.S. would even consider processing H visas for the Commonwealth's foreign workers now, so maximum uncertainty lies ahead.
ALLEGATION OF BIAS: I take strong exception to your allegation that I am biased against foreign national workers. While I refuse to dignify your allegation by giving it more attention than it deserves, I will say that while I worked as a hearing officer, Federal Ombudsman Jim Benedetto sent Dr. Jack Tenorio, Secretary of Labor at the time, a letter commending me for my “proactive” work in assisting foreign national workers. I had a good professional relationship with employees of the Federal Ombudsman's Office. Moreover, I received several Appreciation Certificates from the Philippine Consulate in recognition of the assistance I rendered to the foreign national workers from the Philippines over the years. Foreign worker advocates routinely came to me for assistance in interacting with other units in the Labor Department and Division of Immigration whenever they encountered difficulties that they could not easily resolve. My record speaks for itself. Just because I favor strong enforcement of our Labor laws and don't agree with your views on Labor policies does not mean that I am biased against foreign national workers-no matter how often you or the special-interest groups you represent repeat this allegation.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE LABOR DEPARTMENT: I have been very open with members of the Legislature about the actions taken and policies developed by the Department of Labor. I have sent you (and other legislators) five Interim Reports on the implementation of P.L. 15-108 since re-joining the Labor Department in February 2008. I also invited members of your committee to visit the department. When you visited the Labor Department just recently, I asked you if you had any questions or concerns. You raised several issues, but none of the matters you set out in your letter except your misperception that there are termites in our landlord's attic. I have also made myself available to members of the Legislature. You have never raised with me any of the concerns expressed in your letter. I first learned of your letter to the Secretary when I read about it in the newspaper Saturday morning. It would appear that you released your letter to the press first, and then sent it to the department. All of this hinders a free flow of information between the department and the Legislature.
I hope that we can set politics aside and work together to make sure that U.S. citizen workers, Commonwealth employers, and foreign national workers are all treated fairly. The people of the Commonwealth and those who call the CNMI “home” deserve nothing less.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Deputy Secretary
CNMI Department of Labor
Dear Representative Sablan:
You and I have vastly different positions with respect to labor policies in the Commonwealth. I spent over five years at the Labor Department as a hearing officer. My experience in handling cases involving both local and foreign employers and foreign workers persuaded me that our guest worker system was being manipulated by employers and employees in ways that were unfair to our U.S. citizen workers and were bringing discredit to the Commonwealth. I spent two years as a member of the 15th Legislature getting a comprehensive labor reform bill passed, which was signed into law as P.L. 15-108 last November. I have spent the last six months as Deputy Secretary of Labor implementing this law and working to make our system better. I strongly disagree with the labor policies you advocate, and I have said so publicly. It is regrettable that you have now chosen to attack me personally because of our differences over labor policies.
I make the following observations so we are clear about what those differences are:
OVERSTAYERS: You believe that foreign workers who have not been renewed by the employer who brought them to the Commonwealth, and who cannot find an employer to whom to transfer, should be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth as unemployed persons. I disagree with your position. Since 1983, our guest worker laws have required that aliens who come to the Commonwealth remain productively employed. There are good policy reasons for this requirement. Unemployed foreign workers require social services that create a financial burden on the Commonwealth; they often work without permits and undermine legitimate businesses that comply with the law and hire U.S. citizen workers. For that reason, the Labor Department publishes Overstayer Lists so that persons who are affected may come forward to correct the record or leave the Commonwealth voluntarily so as to preserve their right to re-enter.
NO-JOB SPONSORSHIPS: You believe that if a foreign worker pays to make an arrangement under which someone sponsors that worker by saying they are “employed”-although the sponsor has no real job for that worker and that worker does no real work for that sponsor-that the worker should be able to remain in the Commonwealth. I disagree with your position. “No-job sponsorships” are a fraud on the Commonwealth. In 2008 alone, the Director of Labor has denied about 1,000 applications, many for “no-job sponsorships.” Under a typical “no-job sponsorship” arrangement, the foreign worker pays the Labor Department fees, pays the bonding fee (for a bond that may not exist), and pays phantom taxes on wages not paid so that the Department of Finance will not crack down on the employer. The foreign worker then goes into the underground economy and finds his or her own job, or simply “retires” to live with a spouse or partner who works. The people who engage in “no-job sponsorships” on both the employer side and the worker side have evaded Commonwealth law, made false statements to the department, and sometimes testified falsely under oath. The Commonwealth's purpose in permitting guest workers to enter to work is to support the economy. People who engage in “no-job sponsorships” undermine that purpose; they do not support the economy. They simply seek the privilege of residence in the Commonwealth for which many, if not most, cannot qualify under visa rules.
TRANSFERS: You believe that there should be a “free market” in which there is no approval required when a foreign worker transfers from one job to another, so that a foreign worker can basically set up a new business and work for himself or herself if they want to do that. I disagree with your position. Under P.L. 15-108, all transfers must be approved by a hearing officer. The requirement of a careful but speedy review is very important in assuring that each foreign worker has a legitimate job with an employer who does not have past problems that might lead to taking advantage of the worker. Since the implementation of P.L. 15-108 in January 2008, this review process has resulted in numerous transfers being denied after a hearing on the ground that the proposed transfer did not comply with Commonwealth law. These transfer denials may involve illegal conduct on the part of the employer, the worker, or both. Every worker whose transfer is affected by reasons having to do with an ineligible employer is given another opportunity to find a suitable employer and transfer. There are good policy reasons for the requirement of administrative review of transfers. Transfers to employers who have previously exploited workers or who have no financial means to pay the worker is likely to lead to more labor complaints in the future, which require the department's resources to adjudicate.
PERMANENT RESIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WORK STATUS: You believe that foreign workers who have been in the Commonwealth for more than five years, regardless of whether they have worked during that time, should have permanent residence in the Commonwealth. You even introduced a bill to try to achieve such objective. I disagree with your position, and the Labor Department strongly opposed your bill. I firmly believe that the House's 15-2 decision to adopt the Committee Report to shelve your bill last Friday, August 22, 2008, is the right decision.
FOREIGN WORKERS WITH U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN: You believe that any foreign worker who is given permission to enter the Commonwealth to work and has a child while in the Commonwealth should be given a free pass to remain in the Commonwealth forever. I disagree with your position. The U.S. does not allow this, nor does any other country. Why, then, should the Commonwealth allow this? The citizenship of children does not affect the work status of their parents.
FEDERALIZATION: You believe the federal government will solve our problems in the guest worker area. I disagree with your position. Our experience with the federal government during Trust Territory times-not all that long ago-was very disappointing. The U.S. has a very substantial guest worker problem of its own, which it has not yet solved. Immigration reform is stalled in the U.S. There is no reason to believe that federal officials are more capable than Commonwealth officials with respect to running the labor system in the Commonwealth. In my view, federalization will hurt foreign workers. They will be deported without regard to their contribution to the Commonwealth, and they cannot qualify for U.S. visas. You know that the availability of H visas will expire quite quickly by 2014 and then the Commonwealth will be competing against the entire continental U.S. for these visas. That does not hold out the prospect for more than a very few foreign workers to remain in the Commonwealth. The federal officials from DHS who visited recently expressed little likelihood that the U.S. would even consider processing H visas for the Commonwealth's foreign workers now, so maximum uncertainty lies ahead.
ALLEGATION OF BIAS: I take strong exception to your allegation that I am biased against foreign national workers. While I refuse to dignify your allegation by giving it more attention than it deserves, I will say that while I worked as a hearing officer, Federal Ombudsman Jim Benedetto sent Dr. Jack Tenorio, Secretary of Labor at the time, a letter commending me for my “proactive” work in assisting foreign national workers. I had a good professional relationship with employees of the Federal Ombudsman's Office. Moreover, I received several Appreciation Certificates from the Philippine Consulate in recognition of the assistance I rendered to the foreign national workers from the Philippines over the years. Foreign worker advocates routinely came to me for assistance in interacting with other units in the Labor Department and Division of Immigration whenever they encountered difficulties that they could not easily resolve. My record speaks for itself. Just because I favor strong enforcement of our Labor laws and don't agree with your views on Labor policies does not mean that I am biased against foreign national workers-no matter how often you or the special-interest groups you represent repeat this allegation.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE LABOR DEPARTMENT: I have been very open with members of the Legislature about the actions taken and policies developed by the Department of Labor. I have sent you (and other legislators) five Interim Reports on the implementation of P.L. 15-108 since re-joining the Labor Department in February 2008. I also invited members of your committee to visit the department. When you visited the Labor Department just recently, I asked you if you had any questions or concerns. You raised several issues, but none of the matters you set out in your letter except your misperception that there are termites in our landlord's attic. I have also made myself available to members of the Legislature. You have never raised with me any of the concerns expressed in your letter. I first learned of your letter to the Secretary when I read about it in the newspaper Saturday morning. It would appear that you released your letter to the press first, and then sent it to the department. All of this hinders a free flow of information between the department and the Legislature.
I hope that we can set politics aside and work together to make sure that U.S. citizen workers, Commonwealth employers, and foreign national workers are all treated fairly. The people of the Commonwealth and those who call the CNMI “home” deserve nothing less.
Cinta M. Kaipat
Deputy Secretary
CNMI Department of Labor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
