Monday, March 22, 2010
Letters to the Editor
Monday, March 22, 2010

Open letter to Malou Berueco

Dear Ms. Berueco,

This is in response to your letter to the editor posing several questions wrapped in your opinions about the Commonwealth.

Your question: Why did the Department of Labor issue the umbrella permits before Nov. 28, 2009?

Answer: PL 110-229 specifically required the federal government to respect any permit issued by the Commonwealth government prior to the transition date so long as that permit remained valid and was not revoked. The Commonwealth government acted to provide stability in the workforce so that foreign workers would not quickly fall into illegal status. As you know, the initial regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security (which were struck down by the federal judge) provided only 10 days for workers to find new jobs if they were terminated by their employers or not renewed. Ten days is a very short time for someone to find a new job. We thought that it would be better to allow more time. Under the federal system, employers can employ a worker without a contract, terminate a worker for any reason at any time, and provide no guarantee whatsoever that the worker will actually be paid. Workers in that kind of unstable situation, that has caused many, many problems in the mainland U.S., would not be very productive for the Commonwealth's economy. The Department of Labor's system provides stability.

Your question: Why is it that the foreign national identification card does not contain an issuance date, unlike previous permits the Department of Labor issued?

Answer: The budget of the Department of Labor has been cut very substantially. As a result, we have cut costs wherever we can, even in relatively small ways. The cost to print identification cards has been reduced by cutting the amount of ink we use and changing the card stock.

Your question: Why not issue those unclaimed umbrella permits?

Answer: The department issued very clear widely publicized guidance in October 2009 that anyone who did not sign the contractual agreement included in the umbrella permit and take personal possession of the permit prior to Nov. 28, 2009 would not thereafter be issued a permit. Unfortunately, some commentators in the Commonwealth and elsewhere advised that the umbrella permit was not necessary. I recall that you issued public statements questioning the umbrella permits. Foreign workers who followed the advice that umbrella permits were questionable or unnecessary are now facing the very real possibility that they will fall into illegal status very soon. If they had followed the department's guidance and picked up their permits, they would not have this problem.

Your question: Why not work with other government agencies to find ways and funds on how to train your citizens to be workers?

Answer: We intend to replace foreign workers systematically until every citizen has a job. That is one of my priorities. The recent disparagement of Department of Labor programs has made the Commonwealth's citizens very determined in this regard, and we will move aggressively on this front. In many cases, our citizens do not need training. They are very able employees. They need help in overcoming illegal sponsorships that keep foreign workers in jobs for which they are not paid or kickback situations in which foreign workers are paid less than the minimum wage. They need help in dealing with the hostile workplace environment when foreign workers try to squeeze them out of their jobs. And they need help in requiring a few foreign owners of businesses to obey Commonwealth laws. Do not underestimate our citizens' capability to replace foreign workers, and our efforts to help them to do so.

Your question: Does the CNMI really need to import lagoniza, tocino, et al.?

Answer: The CNMI's economy is not a “managed” marketplace where the government dictates who should import what-as is the case in some foreign countries. Private enterprise imports what sells.

I have these additional comments on the opinions you offered.

The intention of the Department in issuing umbrella permits was to stabilize the workforce. There is no basis whatsoever for your statement that this was really “to make it appear.that the CNMI government was concerned about the economy.” Every Commonwealth Administration has been vitally concerned with the economy. You came to the Commonwealth for the economic opportunity that it offered to you personally. Many aliens came to the Commonwealth because they wanted to get into the U.S., but the U.S. system (now extended to the Commonwealth) would not accept them. And the Commonwealth has been very good to you. You have had an opportunity here to use your skills and to advance based on merit. You have a good job; you married a U.S. citizen and have better status by reason of that; and the only labor complaint you've had since I have been at the Labor Department was that your U.S. citizen son had difficulty in his place of employment due to a work environment that did not favor U.S. citizens. Similarly, the Commonwealth's guest worker system has been very good to most foreign workers who have had economic opportunities that never would have been available to them in their home countries.

There was no surprise whatsoever that the federal government accepted the umbrella permits. We discussed the umbrella permits with Department of Homeland Security officials in Washington as we developed the program. We knew they would be accepted when issued.

Thank you for recognizing that the department expended considerable energy and intelligence, plus very scarce funding, in providing the umbrella permits that are so helpful to the majority of foreign workers. Having stabilized the workforce and protected our economy to the extent we can, we are now turning our primary attention to ensuring that U.S. citizens fill jobs held by foreign workers until every citizen holds a good job.

Cinta M. Kaipat
Deputy Secretary of Labor