NMI Labor claims jurisdiction over case filed by US citizen
Monday, 27 September 2010 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Reporter
E-mail Print
THE administrative hearing office of the Department of Labor can adjudicate cases involving U.S. citizen workers.
Hearing Officer Jerry Cody said the jurisdiction of his office is determined by the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007, or Public Law 15-108, as amended by Public Law 17-1.
He said P.L. 17-1 specifically addresses permanent residents and citizens in its “employment preference” section that deals with an employer’s obligation to hire local residents or U.S. citizens.
Section 4528(a) of P.L. 15-108 states that a citizen, CNMI permanent resident, or U.S. permanent resident who is qualified for a job, may make a claim for damages if an employer has not met the law’s requirements; the employer rejects an application for the job without just cause; or the employer hires a person who is not a citizen, CNMI, permanent resident, or U.S. permanent resident for the job.
Under the law’s Section 4528(b), Cody said the hearing office has original jurisdiction to resolve all claims filed under that section.
“Thus, it is clear that the hearing office has jurisdiction to adjudicate a U.S. citizen’s claim that an employer has violated CNMI ‘preference’ laws,” he said.
Attorney Joey P. San Nicolas, who represented Saipan Triple Star Recycling Inc., asked Labor to dismiss the complaint filed by its employee Antonio A. Reyes, citing the hearing office’s lack of jurisdiction.
In a brief filed with Labor, the employer argued that a “plain reading of the public law reveals that the administrative hearing office does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate questions related to employee’s termination.”
But Cody, in his administrative order dated Sept. 22, denied the motion to dismiss filed by Saipan Triple Star Recycling Inc.
A review of Public Law 17-1, he said, reveals that it contains a specific section that confers broad jurisdiction to the hearing office.
Section 4942(a) states that “[t]he Administrative Hearing Office shall have original jurisdiction to resolve all actions involving alleged violations of the labor and wage laws of the commonwealth,” he said.
He said this broad jurisdictional language, which first appeared in P.L. 15-108, “represents a significant change from the limited jurisdiction” of the Nonresident Workers Act that had been in effect for 10 years prior to the enactment of P.L. 15-108.
Cody admitted that P.L. 17-1 is not a model of clarity with respect to the jurisdictional issue, saying that claims of citizens or permanent residents are not specifically mentioned except in sections dealing with “employment preference issue.”
But, he added, the fact that the broad jurisdictional language was added by the Legislature when it replaced the Nonresident Workers Act with P.L. 15-108, suggested that the Legislature intended to expand the hearing office’s jurisdiction from the former limited jurisdiction of the NWA to complaints filed by U.S. citizens or residents.
According to Cody, “It makes sense to allow local residents or citizens to utilize the services of the hearing office that operates on an expedited simplified format with relaxed rules of evidence and an absence of legal formalities.”
He added, “This administrative court is designed to enable a worker to bring a complaint regarding wages or working conditions without having to hire legal counsel.”
He said given that many local U.S. citizens or residents make the same wages as foreign national workers, they should be allowed to utilize the department’s administrative system to adjudicate their labor complaints.
Cody said the labor case of Reyes has been referred to the department’s enforcement section for investigation.
Showing posts with label PL 15-108. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PL 15-108. Show all posts
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Monday, August 3, 2009
Kaipat says passport surrender policy not new
Tuesday, 04 August 2009 00:00 By Junhan B. Todeno - Variety News Staff
E-mail Print PDF
FOREIGN workers who just arrived on Saipan said the Division of Immigration asked them to surrender their passports upon their arrival at the Francisco C. Ada International Airport and only got them back after they underwent the mandatory orientation seminar at the Department of Labor.
Division of Labor officer Israel De Leon briefs guest workers who just arrived on Saipan during a mandatory orientation program. Photo by Junhan B. Todeno
Division of Labor officer Israel De Leon briefs guest workers who just arrived on Saipan during a mandatory orientation program. Photo by Junhan B. Todeno
But Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said there is nothing new to this policy.
“Workers must complete certain processing, including orientation, in order to enter the Commonwealth. The Immigration Division holds passports until all processing is completed,” she said.
She said even the U.S. applies the same policy when admitting foreign workers.
She said every guest worker arriving in the Commonwealth must attend the orientation. If they fail, they could be immediately repatriated.
The labor official said all guest workers should be aware about the local labor policies, particularly the mandatory, orientation seminar.
The local labor laws were modified on Jan. 1, 2008.
Kapat said they haven’t received any complaints about the orientation process, and “many guest workers have expressed their thanks for the very informative way the Commonwealth welcomes new workers.”
In some cases, she added, employers attend the orientation session along with the workers. She said some employers even praise the local labor system for adopting the mandatory orientation policy.
The Labor Department holds orientation seminar in three languages—English, Chinese and Korean—though a videotaped program.
Kaipat said they will soon have Filipino and Japanese versions despite budget constraints.
She said each new guest worker received basic information on their rights and responsibilities under Commonwealth and U.S. law.
The employment of each arriving guest worker is checked to ensure that an actual job is available and the employer is financially capable of paying the required wages, she said.
“All these new steps, put into place by Public Law 15-108, have substantially reduced the number of labor disputes and complaints involving recently-arriving workers. The program is working as the Legislature intended,” Kaipat said.
But Kaipat said the numbers of arrivals of guest workers have declined this year compared to the previous years.
She cited the contributing factors: the Labor Department vigorously enforces the U.S. citizen workforce participation requirement and regulation changes that have greatly narrowed the available exemptions; the Governor barred entry of unskilled workers; and the Labor Department enforces a secondary preference for on-island workers as it is much more efficient for the Commonwealth government when
E-mail Print PDF
FOREIGN workers who just arrived on Saipan said the Division of Immigration asked them to surrender their passports upon their arrival at the Francisco C. Ada International Airport and only got them back after they underwent the mandatory orientation seminar at the Department of Labor.
Division of Labor officer Israel De Leon briefs guest workers who just arrived on Saipan during a mandatory orientation program. Photo by Junhan B. Todeno
Division of Labor officer Israel De Leon briefs guest workers who just arrived on Saipan during a mandatory orientation program. Photo by Junhan B. Todeno
But Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said there is nothing new to this policy.
“Workers must complete certain processing, including orientation, in order to enter the Commonwealth. The Immigration Division holds passports until all processing is completed,” she said.
She said even the U.S. applies the same policy when admitting foreign workers.
She said every guest worker arriving in the Commonwealth must attend the orientation. If they fail, they could be immediately repatriated.
The labor official said all guest workers should be aware about the local labor policies, particularly the mandatory, orientation seminar.
The local labor laws were modified on Jan. 1, 2008.
Kapat said they haven’t received any complaints about the orientation process, and “many guest workers have expressed their thanks for the very informative way the Commonwealth welcomes new workers.”
In some cases, she added, employers attend the orientation session along with the workers. She said some employers even praise the local labor system for adopting the mandatory orientation policy.
The Labor Department holds orientation seminar in three languages—English, Chinese and Korean—though a videotaped program.
Kaipat said they will soon have Filipino and Japanese versions despite budget constraints.
She said each new guest worker received basic information on their rights and responsibilities under Commonwealth and U.S. law.
The employment of each arriving guest worker is checked to ensure that an actual job is available and the employer is financially capable of paying the required wages, she said.
“All these new steps, put into place by Public Law 15-108, have substantially reduced the number of labor disputes and complaints involving recently-arriving workers. The program is working as the Legislature intended,” Kaipat said.
But Kaipat said the numbers of arrivals of guest workers have declined this year compared to the previous years.
She cited the contributing factors: the Labor Department vigorously enforces the U.S. citizen workforce participation requirement and regulation changes that have greatly narrowed the available exemptions; the Governor barred entry of unskilled workers; and the Labor Department enforces a secondary preference for on-island workers as it is much more efficient for the Commonwealth government when
Thursday, June 25, 2009
No Loopholes Under Labor Law
Opinion
Friday, June 26, 2009
No loopholes under labor law
By JACINTA M. KAIPAT
Special to the Saipan Tribune
I write to respond to the several letters that have appeared in the press about citizens who are unable to find jobs. There are no loopholes under the labor law, as has been repeatedly suggested.
PL 15-108 benefits local applicants
The new labor law fixed very significant problems for local applicants under the old law and extended protections to ensure that local applicants know about and get preference for jobs in the Commonwealth. PL 15-108 provides a new remedy - damages in the amount of six months' wages - in the event that a citizen is passed over for hiring by an employer who renewed or hired a foreign worker. Our Hearing Office mediates these complaints and offers prompt hearings on all complaints. I urge any citizen who thinks that he or she has been to come to the Labor Department and file a complaint. The staff of the Hearing Office will help you fill out the complaint form. Our investigators will go out and gather the employer's records to present at a hearing. PL 15-108 provided this protection specifically in order to guard against the kind of problems about which the letter-writers complain.
Individual problems
In order to try to solve the individual problems at hand as expeditiously as possible, I looked at our records with respect to applications filed by the letter writers to see if we could help with their applications. I found that none of the letter writers save three had used our system-at least under the names that they used when they wrote to the press. (Mr./Ms. Loly A. Sablan and Mr. Kelvin A. Aldan never used our system to apply for a job online. Mr. Greg Magofna used the system once, back in January. Mr. Gregorio Cruz and Mr. Willie Brundidge, Jr. have used the system many times.) I looked at our complaint files to determine if any of the letter-writers had used the protection that PL 15-108 offers citizens in cases where a foreign worker has been hired or renewed over a qualified citizen. None had except for one.
No waivers
There are no waivers of the workforce participation requirement or the job preference requirement under PL 15-108. All waivers were abolished. Waivers were granted based on subjective standards. Under prior law, there were hundreds of waivers granted to employers that allowed them to hire foreign workers when they were not in compliance with our workforce participation requirements or our job preference requirements. Those who long for the “old days” remember a time of full employment when these waivers did not matter much because citizens were employed by the government or private- sector jobs were available.
Advertising renewals yields jobs for citizens
The letter-writers ask why we require employers to advertise jobs where the employer hopes to renew a foreign worker. The simple answer is that advertising renewals helps create jobs for locals. During the 12 months after April 2008, approximately 600 locals took jobs that were intended as renewals for foreign workers. In the past, there have been renewals of foreign workers where no local applicant was available. But now, for example, Tony Pellegrino's training program is producing local applicants with carpentry, plumbing, electrician and other skills that were not in the job market before. When a renewal in one of those categories comes up, we are now training local applicants with the skills to claim these jobs and they are successful in doing so.
Incentive exemption
The letter-writers ask why we have an incentive exemption, and they blame the exemption for shutting locals out of jobs. The answer is that we have the exemption in order to encourage businesses to hire locals and the exemption actually creates good jobs for locals; it does not shut locals out. This came about as a result of a year-long study led by the Public Auditor's Office, which recommended that the Legislature ultimately adopt this Incentive Exemption as it opens up those jobs paying more than the minimum wage to qualified locals. In order to give businesses that hire local workers in good jobs some competitive reward, PL 15-108 allowed a limited incentive exemption. The incentive exemption can be claimed only when an employer has reached the performance benchmark in hiring locals well above that required by the workforce participation provision.
Phasing out of the incentive exemption
The Legislature gave the Labor Department the regulatory power to phase out the incentive exemption, and the Department has been doing that over time since PL 15-108 was enacted. Four months ago, the Department began a consulting process with respect to further proposed changes in the exemption. It is very important that labor regulations not cause businesses the kind of increased costs and burdens that contribute to closures. If we do that, we lose jobs forever. After taking into considerations the comments we got in the informal consultation process, in May, the Department proposed regulations that would increase the performance benchmark to 50% (from 35%) U.S. citizen employment in designated job categories in order to qualify for the exemption, and that would limit the job categories to which the exemption applies. Those regulations go into effect on July 1, 2009. This change will cut back the exemption.
Small business exemption
The letter-writers complain about the small business exemption, which allows businesses with fewer than five employees relief from the job preference requirements. At the time PL 15-108 was enacted (and today), the concern of the Legislature was that small businesses both fail more quickly, thus eliminating jobs, and are the engine of recovery from an economic depression because they start up more quickly when the economy turns around. The Legislature wanted to encourage small businesses. For the same reason, legislators in the House have recently proposed allowing small businesses relief from the gross receipts tax.
Phasing out of the small business exemption
The Legislature gave the Labor Department the regulatory power to phase out the small business exemption, and the Department has been doing that over time since PL 15-108 was enacted. Last year, I issued a notice that required all retail businesses that accept food stamps to have at least one U.S. citizen employee. This opened up about 100 jobs for U.S. citizens. This year, we have increased the requirement so that all small businesses of any kind must have at least one full-time U.S. citizen employee. This change will cut back the exemption.
Standards
One important feature of PL 15-108 was to eliminate discretionary waivers and require that exemptions be based on objective standards set out in regulations. The Director of Employment Services enforces standards rigorously. An employer either qualifies for an exemption or does not. We do not do favors for anyone. All employers are measured by the same standards. The system is fair and effective in meeting competing interests of preserving businesses and jobs and, at the same time, ensuring citizen access to available jobs.
Enforcement
The Director of Employment Services and the Director of Labor have effective processes in place to enforce the requirements of PL 15-108 that provide U.S. citizens preference for available jobs. Citizen complaints are investigated and those who violate the law are prosecuted under agency cases brought by the Director of Labor. The Hearing Office deals quickly with any complaints from citizens that a foreign worker has been hired over a qualified citizen. Whatever may have been complaints about enforcement in past Administrations, these people are dedicated civil servants doing their jobs well.
It is not possible to satisfy everyone. Some citizens will not find jobs for reasons that employers find compelling and that are not prohibited by law. Anyone who has hired any kind of employee, even a houseworker, knows that there are certain important traits that employers want to see in employees. The Labor Department is doing a good job in assisting U.S. citizens to find and take advantage of the job opportunities available to them that they are qualified for. We have come a long way over the past three years, and we continue to look for ways to improve. I welcome citizen comments. My e-mail address is depsec2@gmail.com.
Jacinta Kaipat is the Deputy Secretary of the CNMI Department of Labor.
Friday, June 26, 2009
No loopholes under labor law
By JACINTA M. KAIPAT
Special to the Saipan Tribune
I write to respond to the several letters that have appeared in the press about citizens who are unable to find jobs. There are no loopholes under the labor law, as has been repeatedly suggested.
PL 15-108 benefits local applicants
The new labor law fixed very significant problems for local applicants under the old law and extended protections to ensure that local applicants know about and get preference for jobs in the Commonwealth. PL 15-108 provides a new remedy - damages in the amount of six months' wages - in the event that a citizen is passed over for hiring by an employer who renewed or hired a foreign worker. Our Hearing Office mediates these complaints and offers prompt hearings on all complaints. I urge any citizen who thinks that he or she has been to come to the Labor Department and file a complaint. The staff of the Hearing Office will help you fill out the complaint form. Our investigators will go out and gather the employer's records to present at a hearing. PL 15-108 provided this protection specifically in order to guard against the kind of problems about which the letter-writers complain.
Individual problems
In order to try to solve the individual problems at hand as expeditiously as possible, I looked at our records with respect to applications filed by the letter writers to see if we could help with their applications. I found that none of the letter writers save three had used our system-at least under the names that they used when they wrote to the press. (Mr./Ms. Loly A. Sablan and Mr. Kelvin A. Aldan never used our system to apply for a job online. Mr. Greg Magofna used the system once, back in January. Mr. Gregorio Cruz and Mr. Willie Brundidge, Jr. have used the system many times.) I looked at our complaint files to determine if any of the letter-writers had used the protection that PL 15-108 offers citizens in cases where a foreign worker has been hired or renewed over a qualified citizen. None had except for one.
No waivers
There are no waivers of the workforce participation requirement or the job preference requirement under PL 15-108. All waivers were abolished. Waivers were granted based on subjective standards. Under prior law, there were hundreds of waivers granted to employers that allowed them to hire foreign workers when they were not in compliance with our workforce participation requirements or our job preference requirements. Those who long for the “old days” remember a time of full employment when these waivers did not matter much because citizens were employed by the government or private- sector jobs were available.
Advertising renewals yields jobs for citizens
The letter-writers ask why we require employers to advertise jobs where the employer hopes to renew a foreign worker. The simple answer is that advertising renewals helps create jobs for locals. During the 12 months after April 2008, approximately 600 locals took jobs that were intended as renewals for foreign workers. In the past, there have been renewals of foreign workers where no local applicant was available. But now, for example, Tony Pellegrino's training program is producing local applicants with carpentry, plumbing, electrician and other skills that were not in the job market before. When a renewal in one of those categories comes up, we are now training local applicants with the skills to claim these jobs and they are successful in doing so.
Incentive exemption
The letter-writers ask why we have an incentive exemption, and they blame the exemption for shutting locals out of jobs. The answer is that we have the exemption in order to encourage businesses to hire locals and the exemption actually creates good jobs for locals; it does not shut locals out. This came about as a result of a year-long study led by the Public Auditor's Office, which recommended that the Legislature ultimately adopt this Incentive Exemption as it opens up those jobs paying more than the minimum wage to qualified locals. In order to give businesses that hire local workers in good jobs some competitive reward, PL 15-108 allowed a limited incentive exemption. The incentive exemption can be claimed only when an employer has reached the performance benchmark in hiring locals well above that required by the workforce participation provision.
Phasing out of the incentive exemption
The Legislature gave the Labor Department the regulatory power to phase out the incentive exemption, and the Department has been doing that over time since PL 15-108 was enacted. Four months ago, the Department began a consulting process with respect to further proposed changes in the exemption. It is very important that labor regulations not cause businesses the kind of increased costs and burdens that contribute to closures. If we do that, we lose jobs forever. After taking into considerations the comments we got in the informal consultation process, in May, the Department proposed regulations that would increase the performance benchmark to 50% (from 35%) U.S. citizen employment in designated job categories in order to qualify for the exemption, and that would limit the job categories to which the exemption applies. Those regulations go into effect on July 1, 2009. This change will cut back the exemption.
Small business exemption
The letter-writers complain about the small business exemption, which allows businesses with fewer than five employees relief from the job preference requirements. At the time PL 15-108 was enacted (and today), the concern of the Legislature was that small businesses both fail more quickly, thus eliminating jobs, and are the engine of recovery from an economic depression because they start up more quickly when the economy turns around. The Legislature wanted to encourage small businesses. For the same reason, legislators in the House have recently proposed allowing small businesses relief from the gross receipts tax.
Phasing out of the small business exemption
The Legislature gave the Labor Department the regulatory power to phase out the small business exemption, and the Department has been doing that over time since PL 15-108 was enacted. Last year, I issued a notice that required all retail businesses that accept food stamps to have at least one U.S. citizen employee. This opened up about 100 jobs for U.S. citizens. This year, we have increased the requirement so that all small businesses of any kind must have at least one full-time U.S. citizen employee. This change will cut back the exemption.
Standards
One important feature of PL 15-108 was to eliminate discretionary waivers and require that exemptions be based on objective standards set out in regulations. The Director of Employment Services enforces standards rigorously. An employer either qualifies for an exemption or does not. We do not do favors for anyone. All employers are measured by the same standards. The system is fair and effective in meeting competing interests of preserving businesses and jobs and, at the same time, ensuring citizen access to available jobs.
Enforcement
The Director of Employment Services and the Director of Labor have effective processes in place to enforce the requirements of PL 15-108 that provide U.S. citizens preference for available jobs. Citizen complaints are investigated and those who violate the law are prosecuted under agency cases brought by the Director of Labor. The Hearing Office deals quickly with any complaints from citizens that a foreign worker has been hired over a qualified citizen. Whatever may have been complaints about enforcement in past Administrations, these people are dedicated civil servants doing their jobs well.
It is not possible to satisfy everyone. Some citizens will not find jobs for reasons that employers find compelling and that are not prohibited by law. Anyone who has hired any kind of employee, even a houseworker, knows that there are certain important traits that employers want to see in employees. The Labor Department is doing a good job in assisting U.S. citizens to find and take advantage of the job opportunities available to them that they are qualified for. We have come a long way over the past three years, and we continue to look for ways to improve. I welcome citizen comments. My e-mail address is depsec2@gmail.com.
Jacinta Kaipat is the Deputy Secretary of the CNMI Department of Labor.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Labor-Business Balance
Friday, June 05, 2009
Opinion
Friday, June 05, 2009
By JACINTA M. KAIPAT
Special to the Saipan Tribune
I write to all our citizens who are concerned about finding jobs in the Commonwealth. This is my No. 1 priority in the Labor Department. We need to open available jobs to our citizens in a fast and effective manner, but we have to be careful about how we do this.
In our situation of serious economic decline, the labor-business balance in the Commonwealth is more important than ever. Citizens want a preference for all jobs; they don't want businesses using foreign workers when unemployment among citizens continues to occur. Businesses want a preference for business-friendly policies; they don't want to be burdened with extra costs at a time when the minimum wage is rising dramatically and the market in the Commonwealth, especially for tourist services, is declining.
Each side has a point. First, it is important that our citizens be employed. That is the only way we can keep our talented people from migrating to the States or falling into poverty here at home. Second, it is important that every business survive this economic downturn because businesses create jobs. If businesses fail, then jobs disappear altogether, and there are no jobs to take their place. When that happens, the entire community loses.
As a community, we must do the best we can for each side of the labor-business balance. Our current labor law, P.L. 15-108, which was enacted in 2007, does that.
On the Labor side, to push for citizen employment, the law provides five basic tools:
1. We have a workforce participation requirement of 20 percent. Citizens must hold 20 percent of the full-time positions in every business in the Commonwealth. That percentage will increase to 30 percent by 2012. In addition, in the proposed regulations, we have increased the requirement for small businesses (fewer than five employees) to employ at least one citizen employee.
2. We have a job vacancy announcement requirement. Every job available in the Commonwealth must be advertised so that citizens know what jobs are available.
3. We have a citizen-preference requirement, so that a citizen who is qualified for a particular job must be given preference in hiring over a foreign worker.
4. We have an approved process for jobs that go to foreign workers-new, renewal, or transfer-so that before giving a job to a foreign worker, the first three requirements must be met. Under the Labor Department's new automation system, we are able to give these requests for approval much more rigorous scrutiny.
5. We have a citizen claims provision that, in the event a foreign worker was hired for a job for which a citizen applicant was qualified, the citizen may make a complaint to the Labor Department and, if he or she wins, collects up to six months in wages from the employer who made the hiring decision.
In addition, there are fees attached to the use of foreign labor (application fees, processing fees, and bonding fees), medical, and repatriation expenses that make the use of foreign labor more expensive. These fees are increased from time to time to cover Labor Department costs and contribute to the Commonwealth revenues.
On the business side, the Labor law recognizes that there are costs involved to businesses from limitations on the free-market for labor. When we impose hiring requirements, there are record-keeping costs in connection with compliance. When we require a citizen preference, there are substantial costs involved in losing the experience of the worker who has previously held the job. Training new workers, even if only for a few months, incurs costs. Any regulatory system imposes delays on businesses, and every delay also involves costs. Additional costs are very difficult for any business to absorb during an economic downturn without cutting jobs. To ease the transition to citizen labor over a three-year period, the Labor law provides four benefits to businesses:
1. We are phasing out the moratorium and we have suspended the periodic exit that imposed recording-keeping costs.
2. We have allowed an exemption from the citizen preference (but not the 20 percent requirement) for lower-paying jobs when a business achieves 35 percent citizen employment in high-paying jobs. We have just increased this to 50 percent in the proposed regulations so the exemption will be harder to get. This exemption will continue to get smaller next year.
3. We have allowed more part-time work and two-year contracts temporarily during the economic depression.
4. We have paid for and installed an interactive website so businesses do not have to pay to advertise jobs, and we have paid for and installed a new automation system so delays are now a matter of only a few days rather than weeks or months.
I believe that this balance is a fair one to both sides: citizens who want jobs, and businesses who want to avoid having to close down. The statistics indicate that most of the permanent loss of jobs during the economic depression has fallen on foreign workers. Their numbers have declined from more than 30,000 in 2005 to fewer than 16,000 today. Even after the garment manufacturers closed down, foreign workers continue to be displaced. More than 2,000 departed the Commonwealth just in the last 12 months. We do not have good statistics on citizen employment because the U.S. Census Bureau does not give the Commonwealth and other territories the same kind of data services it routinely provides to States and counties in the U.S. We are hopeful that our Delegate in Congress can do something about this.
The system is not perfect. Not every citizen will find the kind of job he or she wants. But on the whole, by maintaining a labor-business balance, we will have more citizens employed and keep more businesses open and operating-providing more jobs are available in this economy. I understand the pain and frustration of those individuals who cannot find the jobs they need. The Labor Department is working hard to make available as many job opportunities as possible. I believe we can work our way through this economic depression more successfully with labor-business harmony and this will benefit everyone in our community.
Jacinta M. Kaipat is the Deputy Secretary of Labor and a former House of Representatives lawmaker.
Opinion
Friday, June 05, 2009
By JACINTA M. KAIPAT
Special to the Saipan Tribune
I write to all our citizens who are concerned about finding jobs in the Commonwealth. This is my No. 1 priority in the Labor Department. We need to open available jobs to our citizens in a fast and effective manner, but we have to be careful about how we do this.
In our situation of serious economic decline, the labor-business balance in the Commonwealth is more important than ever. Citizens want a preference for all jobs; they don't want businesses using foreign workers when unemployment among citizens continues to occur. Businesses want a preference for business-friendly policies; they don't want to be burdened with extra costs at a time when the minimum wage is rising dramatically and the market in the Commonwealth, especially for tourist services, is declining.
Each side has a point. First, it is important that our citizens be employed. That is the only way we can keep our talented people from migrating to the States or falling into poverty here at home. Second, it is important that every business survive this economic downturn because businesses create jobs. If businesses fail, then jobs disappear altogether, and there are no jobs to take their place. When that happens, the entire community loses.
As a community, we must do the best we can for each side of the labor-business balance. Our current labor law, P.L. 15-108, which was enacted in 2007, does that.
On the Labor side, to push for citizen employment, the law provides five basic tools:
1. We have a workforce participation requirement of 20 percent. Citizens must hold 20 percent of the full-time positions in every business in the Commonwealth. That percentage will increase to 30 percent by 2012. In addition, in the proposed regulations, we have increased the requirement for small businesses (fewer than five employees) to employ at least one citizen employee.
2. We have a job vacancy announcement requirement. Every job available in the Commonwealth must be advertised so that citizens know what jobs are available.
3. We have a citizen-preference requirement, so that a citizen who is qualified for a particular job must be given preference in hiring over a foreign worker.
4. We have an approved process for jobs that go to foreign workers-new, renewal, or transfer-so that before giving a job to a foreign worker, the first three requirements must be met. Under the Labor Department's new automation system, we are able to give these requests for approval much more rigorous scrutiny.
5. We have a citizen claims provision that, in the event a foreign worker was hired for a job for which a citizen applicant was qualified, the citizen may make a complaint to the Labor Department and, if he or she wins, collects up to six months in wages from the employer who made the hiring decision.
In addition, there are fees attached to the use of foreign labor (application fees, processing fees, and bonding fees), medical, and repatriation expenses that make the use of foreign labor more expensive. These fees are increased from time to time to cover Labor Department costs and contribute to the Commonwealth revenues.
On the business side, the Labor law recognizes that there are costs involved to businesses from limitations on the free-market for labor. When we impose hiring requirements, there are record-keeping costs in connection with compliance. When we require a citizen preference, there are substantial costs involved in losing the experience of the worker who has previously held the job. Training new workers, even if only for a few months, incurs costs. Any regulatory system imposes delays on businesses, and every delay also involves costs. Additional costs are very difficult for any business to absorb during an economic downturn without cutting jobs. To ease the transition to citizen labor over a three-year period, the Labor law provides four benefits to businesses:
1. We are phasing out the moratorium and we have suspended the periodic exit that imposed recording-keeping costs.
2. We have allowed an exemption from the citizen preference (but not the 20 percent requirement) for lower-paying jobs when a business achieves 35 percent citizen employment in high-paying jobs. We have just increased this to 50 percent in the proposed regulations so the exemption will be harder to get. This exemption will continue to get smaller next year.
3. We have allowed more part-time work and two-year contracts temporarily during the economic depression.
4. We have paid for and installed an interactive website so businesses do not have to pay to advertise jobs, and we have paid for and installed a new automation system so delays are now a matter of only a few days rather than weeks or months.
I believe that this balance is a fair one to both sides: citizens who want jobs, and businesses who want to avoid having to close down. The statistics indicate that most of the permanent loss of jobs during the economic depression has fallen on foreign workers. Their numbers have declined from more than 30,000 in 2005 to fewer than 16,000 today. Even after the garment manufacturers closed down, foreign workers continue to be displaced. More than 2,000 departed the Commonwealth just in the last 12 months. We do not have good statistics on citizen employment because the U.S. Census Bureau does not give the Commonwealth and other territories the same kind of data services it routinely provides to States and counties in the U.S. We are hopeful that our Delegate in Congress can do something about this.
The system is not perfect. Not every citizen will find the kind of job he or she wants. But on the whole, by maintaining a labor-business balance, we will have more citizens employed and keep more businesses open and operating-providing more jobs are available in this economy. I understand the pain and frustration of those individuals who cannot find the jobs they need. The Labor Department is working hard to make available as many job opportunities as possible. I believe we can work our way through this economic depression more successfully with labor-business harmony and this will benefit everyone in our community.
Jacinta M. Kaipat is the Deputy Secretary of Labor and a former House of Representatives lawmaker.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Kaipat Says Labor is Helping Alien Workers with US Citizen Children
Local
Monday, April 20, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said they are helping alien workers who have U.S. citizen children in getting transfer extensions.
In her progress report on the implementation of the Labor Reform Law, Kaipat said on occasion they give transfer extensions to alien workers who are in “hardship cases.”
“For example, the parents would be required to take their U.S. citizen children out of school near the end of the school term,” Kaipat said.
She said they also sometimes give transfer extensions to skilled workers whose prospective employers need time to get the transfer papers together and secure the necessary bonding.
The deputy secretary noted that their success in placing U.S. citizens in jobs and disqualifying unfit employers have resulted in extensions of transfers for some workers.
“If a worker is displaced because a U.S. citizen applied for the job and was hired, then the foreign worker gets another chance to transfer. If we did not do this, we would have less success in getting foreign workers to help train their U.S. citizen successors,” Kaipat said.
If a worker finds a transfer employer but Labor disqualifies this employer for reasons that are not the worker's fault, then the worker gets another chance to transfer, she said.
If Labor did not do this, she said, the department would have less success in keeping workers out of the underground economy.
Kaipat claims they manage the transfer process carefully.
“Every transfer has to be approved in the Administrative Hearing Office and every employer has to be approved by the Director of Labor,” she added
Monday, April 20, 2009
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said they are helping alien workers who have U.S. citizen children in getting transfer extensions.
In her progress report on the implementation of the Labor Reform Law, Kaipat said on occasion they give transfer extensions to alien workers who are in “hardship cases.”
“For example, the parents would be required to take their U.S. citizen children out of school near the end of the school term,” Kaipat said.
She said they also sometimes give transfer extensions to skilled workers whose prospective employers need time to get the transfer papers together and secure the necessary bonding.
The deputy secretary noted that their success in placing U.S. citizens in jobs and disqualifying unfit employers have resulted in extensions of transfers for some workers.
“If a worker is displaced because a U.S. citizen applied for the job and was hired, then the foreign worker gets another chance to transfer. If we did not do this, we would have less success in getting foreign workers to help train their U.S. citizen successors,” Kaipat said.
If a worker finds a transfer employer but Labor disqualifies this employer for reasons that are not the worker's fault, then the worker gets another chance to transfer, she said.
If Labor did not do this, she said, the department would have less success in keeping workers out of the underground economy.
Kaipat claims they manage the transfer process carefully.
“Every transfer has to be approved in the Administrative Hearing Office and every employer has to be approved by the Director of Labor,” she added
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Dead wrong
Letters to the Editor
Friday, April 17, 2009
My friend Zaldy Dandan's editorial segment in Thursday's Variety titled “A big problem” is dead wrong. Zaldy asserts that the Labor Department is denying “more” labor permits and that is a “problem.” The Labor Department processes applications from employers more quickly and efficiently than in prior years. Deficiencies and denials are cleared up or decided promptly. Workers are cleared to work much faster than in prior years.
So Zaldy, would you have us grant labor permits for employers who are running scams and collecting money from foreign workers when there is no job available at all?
Would you have us grant labor permits for employers who have no demonstrable resources with which to pay the workers and thus cause more labor cases about unpaid wages?
Would you have us grant labor permits for employers whose work premises present health and safety hazards?
Would you have us grant labor permits to employers who have had multiple labor cases in the past and have been barred from hiring more foreign workers?
The Labor Department has better automated processes now, and we can weed out unqualified employers efficiently. However, you fail to point out that when we disqualify an employer, we always give the foreign worker another chance to transfer if the worker was not at fault in the employer's failure to qualify.
Your criticism is unfounded and unfair. This Administration has no intent to shrink the foreign worker population in advance of a change in federal law. In fact, we have consistently argued that foreign workers are a valuable part of the community and should not be forcibly deported as the federalization law contemplates. The Labor Department tries hard to work with the foreign worker groups and their representatives to minimize adverse impacts on workers and on the community.
Jacinta M. Kaipat
Deputy Secretary of Labor
Friday, April 17, 2009
My friend Zaldy Dandan's editorial segment in Thursday's Variety titled “A big problem” is dead wrong. Zaldy asserts that the Labor Department is denying “more” labor permits and that is a “problem.” The Labor Department processes applications from employers more quickly and efficiently than in prior years. Deficiencies and denials are cleared up or decided promptly. Workers are cleared to work much faster than in prior years.
So Zaldy, would you have us grant labor permits for employers who are running scams and collecting money from foreign workers when there is no job available at all?
Would you have us grant labor permits for employers who have no demonstrable resources with which to pay the workers and thus cause more labor cases about unpaid wages?
Would you have us grant labor permits for employers whose work premises present health and safety hazards?
Would you have us grant labor permits to employers who have had multiple labor cases in the past and have been barred from hiring more foreign workers?
The Labor Department has better automated processes now, and we can weed out unqualified employers efficiently. However, you fail to point out that when we disqualify an employer, we always give the foreign worker another chance to transfer if the worker was not at fault in the employer's failure to qualify.
Your criticism is unfounded and unfair. This Administration has no intent to shrink the foreign worker population in advance of a change in federal law. In fact, we have consistently argued that foreign workers are a valuable part of the community and should not be forcibly deported as the federalization law contemplates. The Labor Department tries hard to work with the foreign worker groups and their representatives to minimize adverse impacts on workers and on the community.
Jacinta M. Kaipat
Deputy Secretary of Labor
'In layoffs, alien workers first before US citizens'
Local
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Labor Department is vigorously enforcing the U.S. citizen preference in any reductions-in-force, according to Employment Services director Alfred Pangelinan in a statement issued yesterday.
The department's regulations, issued under Section 4937 of Public Law 15-108, provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers first before laying off U.S. citizens in the same O-Net job classification. The regulations also provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers who arrived more recently before laying off foreign workers who have been in the Commonwealth for a longer time.
The only exceptions to this job preference in layoffs are provided in Section 4965 of P.L. 15-108 for consular operations and students on work/study assignments. All other employers are covered by the layoff provisions.
“We have some discretion under our regulations,” said Pangelinan. “We can agree with the employer under certain circumstances to vary the job preference in layoffs for important business reasons, but we must be notified and agree in advance. We cannot provide any flexibility after the fact.”
If an employer has not yet established O-Net classifications with the department when hiring workers, Pangelinan said the department will apply the broadest applicable O-Net classification for layoff job preference for U.S. citizens.
Pangelinan said the regulations recognize that economic necessity may require layoffs. “We recognize that these are difficult economic times,” he said, “and we will work with employers to find a good solution. But we must protect the rights given to U.S. citizen workers by CNMI law.”
Employers are required to give the department 60 days advance notice of any layoffs, so the department can ensure that U.S. citizen employment rights are protected and foreign worker transfers are arranged.
An employer who has laid off foreign workers is barred from hiring any on island foreign workers in the O-Net job classification from which workers were laid off, and is barred for six months from hiring any off-island foreign workers.
An employer who lays off U.S. citizens before laying off foreign workers in the same job classifications is subject to the revocation of foreign worker employment contracts. (PR)
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Labor Department is vigorously enforcing the U.S. citizen preference in any reductions-in-force, according to Employment Services director Alfred Pangelinan in a statement issued yesterday.
The department's regulations, issued under Section 4937 of Public Law 15-108, provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers first before laying off U.S. citizens in the same O-Net job classification. The regulations also provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers who arrived more recently before laying off foreign workers who have been in the Commonwealth for a longer time.
The only exceptions to this job preference in layoffs are provided in Section 4965 of P.L. 15-108 for consular operations and students on work/study assignments. All other employers are covered by the layoff provisions.
“We have some discretion under our regulations,” said Pangelinan. “We can agree with the employer under certain circumstances to vary the job preference in layoffs for important business reasons, but we must be notified and agree in advance. We cannot provide any flexibility after the fact.”
If an employer has not yet established O-Net classifications with the department when hiring workers, Pangelinan said the department will apply the broadest applicable O-Net classification for layoff job preference for U.S. citizens.
Pangelinan said the regulations recognize that economic necessity may require layoffs. “We recognize that these are difficult economic times,” he said, “and we will work with employers to find a good solution. But we must protect the rights given to U.S. citizen workers by CNMI law.”
Employers are required to give the department 60 days advance notice of any layoffs, so the department can ensure that U.S. citizen employment rights are protected and foreign worker transfers are arranged.
An employer who has laid off foreign workers is barred from hiring any on island foreign workers in the O-Net job classification from which workers were laid off, and is barred for six months from hiring any off-island foreign workers.
An employer who lays off U.S. citizens before laying off foreign workers in the same job classifications is subject to the revocation of foreign worker employment contracts. (PR)
Labor presses cutting backlog of labor cases pending in court
Local
Friday, April 17, 2009
By Anthony Pellegrino
Special to the Saipan Tribune
Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said they are eyeing a reduction in the backlog of labor cases pending in the Superior Court.
In her interim report on the implementation of Public Law 15-108, Kaipat said they expect to be current within six to eight weeks on labor cases filed in the local court.
Kaipat said that Labor's new counsel, Eli Golob, appeared in court on several cases a few days after being sworn in as member of the CNMI Bar.
Golob practiced law in Arizona and New York and is reportedly an experienced trial attorney and in administrative hearings.
Kaipat said Golob will also be working on reducing the backlog of alien worker claims at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Labor Relations Board, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
Kaipat emphasized that the backlogs in these federal agencies are not the result of any delay at CNMI Labor.
“We are going to urge the agencies to move along and terminate Temporary Work Authorizations as soon as possible in cases where the agencies continue their undue delays,” she added.
Friday, April 17, 2009
By Anthony Pellegrino
Special to the Saipan Tribune
Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat said they are eyeing a reduction in the backlog of labor cases pending in the Superior Court.
In her interim report on the implementation of Public Law 15-108, Kaipat said they expect to be current within six to eight weeks on labor cases filed in the local court.
Kaipat said that Labor's new counsel, Eli Golob, appeared in court on several cases a few days after being sworn in as member of the CNMI Bar.
Golob practiced law in Arizona and New York and is reportedly an experienced trial attorney and in administrative hearings.
Kaipat said Golob will also be working on reducing the backlog of alien worker claims at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Labor Relations Board, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
Kaipat emphasized that the backlogs in these federal agencies are not the result of any delay at CNMI Labor.
“We are going to urge the agencies to move along and terminate Temporary Work Authorizations as soon as possible in cases where the agencies continue their undue delays,” she added.
Labor: Lay off guest workers first before US citizens
Friday, 17 April 2009 00:00 By Emmanuel T. Erediano - Variety News Staff
E-mail Print PDF
THE Department of Labor yesterday said it will “vigorously” enforce the policy that gives U.S. citizens preference when companies have to reduce their workforce.
Citing Public Law 15-108, Employment Service and Training Division Director Alfred Pangelinan in a statement said every employer must lay off foreign workers before U.S. citizens in the same job classification.
The regulations also provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers who arrived more recently before laying off foreign workers who have been in the CNMI for a long time.
The only exceptions to this job preference in layoffs are those in consular operations and students on work/study assignments.
All other employers are covered by the layoff provisions.
“We have some discretion under our regulations,” Pangelinan said adding that Labor can agree with the employer under certain circumstances to vary the job preference in layoffs for important business reasons, “but we must be notified and agree in advance.”
“We cannot provide any flexibility after the fact,” he added.
Pangelinan said if an employer has not yet established classifications with Labor when hiring workers, the department will apply the broadest applicable classification for layoff job preference for U.S. citizens.
He added that the regulations recognize that economic necessity may require layoffs.
Employers, he said, must give Labor 60 days before laying off their workers so the department can ensure that U.S. citizen employment rights are protected and foreign worker transfers are arranged.
An employer who has laid off a foreign workers is barred for 90 days from hiring any on-island foreign worker in the same job classification.
Such employer is also barred for six months from hiring any off-island foreign workers.
On the other hand, an employer who lays off U.S. citizens before terminating foreign workers in the same job classification is subject to the revocation of foreign worker employment contracts.
E-mail Print PDF
THE Department of Labor yesterday said it will “vigorously” enforce the policy that gives U.S. citizens preference when companies have to reduce their workforce.
Citing Public Law 15-108, Employment Service and Training Division Director Alfred Pangelinan in a statement said every employer must lay off foreign workers before U.S. citizens in the same job classification.
The regulations also provide that every employer must lay off foreign workers who arrived more recently before laying off foreign workers who have been in the CNMI for a long time.
The only exceptions to this job preference in layoffs are those in consular operations and students on work/study assignments.
All other employers are covered by the layoff provisions.
“We have some discretion under our regulations,” Pangelinan said adding that Labor can agree with the employer under certain circumstances to vary the job preference in layoffs for important business reasons, “but we must be notified and agree in advance.”
“We cannot provide any flexibility after the fact,” he added.
Pangelinan said if an employer has not yet established classifications with Labor when hiring workers, the department will apply the broadest applicable classification for layoff job preference for U.S. citizens.
He added that the regulations recognize that economic necessity may require layoffs.
Employers, he said, must give Labor 60 days before laying off their workers so the department can ensure that U.S. citizen employment rights are protected and foreign worker transfers are arranged.
An employer who has laid off a foreign workers is barred for 90 days from hiring any on-island foreign worker in the same job classification.
Such employer is also barred for six months from hiring any off-island foreign workers.
On the other hand, an employer who lays off U.S. citizens before terminating foreign workers in the same job classification is subject to the revocation of foreign worker employment contracts.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Local
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Kaipat: Delay gives Labor more time for transition
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
With the 180-day delay in implementing the federalization law, there is lesser urgency for any transition related to labor matters, according to Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat
In her progress report on the implementation of Public Law 15-108 or the new reform labor law, Kaipat said Labor can now await the outcome of Gov. Benigno R. Fitial's federalization lawsuit without employers and workers having to adjust their affairs in the interim.
“However, we have been meeting regularly with the federal authorities since last fall to explain exactly what we are doing, how we are making decisions, and why our procedures are working effectively,” she said.
Kaipat said she believes Labor has good lines of communication and that the federal authorities have much better and more current information about Labor activities than has been the case in past years.
With respect to the federal stimulus issue, Kaipat said they believe that the Labor Employment Services and Enforcement sections may qualify for grants under the federal stimulus funding.
“We are working on three proposals, and we expect to have them submitted shortly,” Kaipat said.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Kaipat: Delay gives Labor more time for transition
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
With the 180-day delay in implementing the federalization law, there is lesser urgency for any transition related to labor matters, according to Department of Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat
In her progress report on the implementation of Public Law 15-108 or the new reform labor law, Kaipat said Labor can now await the outcome of Gov. Benigno R. Fitial's federalization lawsuit without employers and workers having to adjust their affairs in the interim.
“However, we have been meeting regularly with the federal authorities since last fall to explain exactly what we are doing, how we are making decisions, and why our procedures are working effectively,” she said.
Kaipat said she believes Labor has good lines of communication and that the federal authorities have much better and more current information about Labor activities than has been the case in past years.
With respect to the federal stimulus issue, Kaipat said they believe that the Labor Employment Services and Enforcement sections may qualify for grants under the federal stimulus funding.
“We are working on three proposals, and we expect to have them submitted shortly,” Kaipat said.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Denied labor applications rising
Tuesday, 07 April 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff
E-mail Print PDF
MORE employers who want to hire foreign workers are being turned down by the Department of Labor.
“There has been a large increase in the number of applications denied. Appeals of these denials have been filed in 627 cases from June 2008 through March 2009…. The director’s disqualification has been upheld in many cases, and the employer has been denied permission to employ foreign workers,” said Deputy Labor Secretary Cinta M. Kaipat in her latest report to the Legislature.
She said the stringent scrutiny of foreign labor applications aims “to weed out employers who are insolvent, who lack the necessary resources to pay their foreign workers, who may not be providing a real job, or who are otherwise unqualified.”
The labor official said the measure benefits the cash-strapped CNMI government and foreign workers who may have been otherwise exploited.
“This has three beneficial effects: first, the number of unfit employers has been reduced very substantially, resulting in fewer labor complaints from foreign workers about not being paid; second, the number of employment scams set up solely for the purpose of allowing foreign workers to remain in the commonwealth while unemployed has been reduced, resulting in fewer law enforcement problems,” she said.
“And third, the number of U.S. citizens hired has increased because a business can hire a U.S. citizen without any scrutiny of its finances by the Labor Department,” she added.
The government continues to encourage private sector employers to hire U.S. citizens or local residents instead of foreign workers.
Kaipat, however, said this policy still allows displaced foreign workers to apply for jobs.
“Since Oct. 2008, we have processed transfer requests for 615 foreign workers who have been displaced in their jobs by U.S. citizen hires. That is only one informal measure of our success because not every foreign worker who is displaced elects to request permission to transfer; some elect to be repatriated,” she said.
Labor Department data showed more than 16,000 foreign workers left the islands for their home countries from 2006 to 2008.
Majority of these workers have opted to be repatriated after the conclusion of their labor cases.
“During the last three years — 2006, 2007, and 2008 — the Department has processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 foreign workers. This has been an enormous administrative task of completing labor cases, securing repatriation tickets, and making voluntary arrangements for departures,” Kaipat said in her report.
“The department has done this work quietly and efficiently, working cooperatively with foreign workers and their representatives to accommodate hardship concerns and to honor requests for the timing of repatriation,” she added.
Tuesday, 07 April 2009 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff
E-mail Print PDF
MORE employers who want to hire foreign workers are being turned down by the Department of Labor.
“There has been a large increase in the number of applications denied. Appeals of these denials have been filed in 627 cases from June 2008 through March 2009…. The director’s disqualification has been upheld in many cases, and the employer has been denied permission to employ foreign workers,” said Deputy Labor Secretary Cinta M. Kaipat in her latest report to the Legislature.
She said the stringent scrutiny of foreign labor applications aims “to weed out employers who are insolvent, who lack the necessary resources to pay their foreign workers, who may not be providing a real job, or who are otherwise unqualified.”
The labor official said the measure benefits the cash-strapped CNMI government and foreign workers who may have been otherwise exploited.
“This has three beneficial effects: first, the number of unfit employers has been reduced very substantially, resulting in fewer labor complaints from foreign workers about not being paid; second, the number of employment scams set up solely for the purpose of allowing foreign workers to remain in the commonwealth while unemployed has been reduced, resulting in fewer law enforcement problems,” she said.
“And third, the number of U.S. citizens hired has increased because a business can hire a U.S. citizen without any scrutiny of its finances by the Labor Department,” she added.
The government continues to encourage private sector employers to hire U.S. citizens or local residents instead of foreign workers.
Kaipat, however, said this policy still allows displaced foreign workers to apply for jobs.
“Since Oct. 2008, we have processed transfer requests for 615 foreign workers who have been displaced in their jobs by U.S. citizen hires. That is only one informal measure of our success because not every foreign worker who is displaced elects to request permission to transfer; some elect to be repatriated,” she said.
Labor Department data showed more than 16,000 foreign workers left the islands for their home countries from 2006 to 2008.
Majority of these workers have opted to be repatriated after the conclusion of their labor cases.
“During the last three years — 2006, 2007, and 2008 — the Department has processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 foreign workers. This has been an enormous administrative task of completing labor cases, securing repatriation tickets, and making voluntary arrangements for departures,” Kaipat said in her report.
“The department has done this work quietly and efficiently, working cooperatively with foreign workers and their representatives to accommodate hardship concerns and to honor requests for the timing of repatriation,” she added.
Local
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Kaipat notes large increase in denial of applications to hire alien workers
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Labor deputy secretary Cinta Kaipat has noted a large increase in the number of applications filed by employers to hire alien workers that were eventually denied by Labor.
Kaipat said appeals of these denials have been filed in 627 cases from June 2008 through March 2009.
“All of these appeals have been processed efficiently by the [Labor] Hearing Office, in addition to its normal caseload of labor complaints,” said Kaipat in her interim progress report submitted Wednesday last week to the Legislature on the implementation of the Public Law 15-108. She was the author of the controversial labor reform law when she was a representative.
The deputy secretary, however, did not cite figures in her report to support her claim of a “large” increase in Labor denials.
Kaipat said Labor director Barry Hirshbein has subjected applications to employ alien workers to tighter scrutiny, using Labor's new automated process.
She said the careful scrutiny has been done to weed out employers who are insolvent, who lack the necessary resources to pay their foreign workers, who may not be providing a real job, or who are otherwise unqualified.
The deputy secretary claimed that Hirshbein's disqualification has been upheld in many cases, and the employers have been denied permission to employ foreign workers.
Kaipat listed three “beneficial effects” of such scrutiny.
First, she said, the number of unfit employers has been reduced very substantially, resulting in fewer labor complaints from foreign workers about not being paid.
Second, Kaipat said, the number of employment scams set up solely for the purpose of allowing foreign workers to remain in the CNMI while unemployed has been reduced, resulting in fewer law enforcement problems.
Finally, she pointed out, the number of U.S citizens hired has increased because a business can hire a U.S. citizen without any scrutiny of its finances by Labor.
In the same report, Kaipat disclosed that in the last three years, Labor processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 alien workers.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Kaipat notes large increase in denial of applications to hire alien workers
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Labor deputy secretary Cinta Kaipat has noted a large increase in the number of applications filed by employers to hire alien workers that were eventually denied by Labor.
Kaipat said appeals of these denials have been filed in 627 cases from June 2008 through March 2009.
“All of these appeals have been processed efficiently by the [Labor] Hearing Office, in addition to its normal caseload of labor complaints,” said Kaipat in her interim progress report submitted Wednesday last week to the Legislature on the implementation of the Public Law 15-108. She was the author of the controversial labor reform law when she was a representative.
The deputy secretary, however, did not cite figures in her report to support her claim of a “large” increase in Labor denials.
Kaipat said Labor director Barry Hirshbein has subjected applications to employ alien workers to tighter scrutiny, using Labor's new automated process.
She said the careful scrutiny has been done to weed out employers who are insolvent, who lack the necessary resources to pay their foreign workers, who may not be providing a real job, or who are otherwise unqualified.
The deputy secretary claimed that Hirshbein's disqualification has been upheld in many cases, and the employers have been denied permission to employ foreign workers.
Kaipat listed three “beneficial effects” of such scrutiny.
First, she said, the number of unfit employers has been reduced very substantially, resulting in fewer labor complaints from foreign workers about not being paid.
Second, Kaipat said, the number of employment scams set up solely for the purpose of allowing foreign workers to remain in the CNMI while unemployed has been reduced, resulting in fewer law enforcement problems.
Finally, she pointed out, the number of U.S citizens hired has increased because a business can hire a U.S. citizen without any scrutiny of its finances by Labor.
In the same report, Kaipat disclosed that in the last three years, Labor processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 alien workers.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Local
Monday, April 06, 2009
16,000-plus alien workers sent home in past 3 years
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
In the last three years, the CNMI Department of Labor processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 alien workers, according to Labor deputy secretary Cinta Kaipat.
Labor is also making good progress in placing U.S. citizens in jobs, she added in her interim progress report submitted Wednesday last week to the Legislature on the implementation of the Public Law 15-108. Kaipat was the author of the controversial labor reform law when she was a congresswoman.
She said the repatriation of 16,000-plus foreign workers in 2006, 2007, and 2008 was an enormous administrative task that involved completing labor cases, securing repatriation tickets, and making voluntary arrangements for departures.
“The department has done this work quietly and efficiently, working cooperatively with foreign workers and their representatives to accommodate hardship concerns and to honor requests for the timing of repatriation,” Kaipat said.
Labor is not involved in any non-voluntary departures as the Immigration Division handles deportations.
The deputy secretary said Labor has assisted Immigration by using its new automation system to generate quarterly overstayers lists.
The lists, when published, she said, assist in obtaining voluntary departures or correction of the records for those whose status entitles them to remain in the CNMI.
On hiring local residents or U.S. citizens, Kaipat said they initially reported only those U.S. citizens who came to Labor in person for assistance in finding a job.
However, she said, they have improved their website so that they can report on all U.S. citizens who find jobs with the assistance of Labor either through the website or through in-person assistance.
“Our new capabilities will allow us to review resumes posted online by persons who have not come to the office,” Kaipat said.
Labor also added the capability for employers to more easily create lists of potential U.S. citizen candidates who have the qualifications for the job to be filled.
Kapat said that since October 2008, they have processed transfer requests for 615 foreign workers who have been displaced from their jobs by U.S. citizen hires.
“That is only one informal measure of our success because not every foreign worker who is displaced elects to request permission to transfer; some elect to be repatriated,” she added.
Monday, April 06, 2009
16,000-plus alien workers sent home in past 3 years
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
In the last three years, the CNMI Department of Labor processed and completed the repatriation of over 16,000 alien workers, according to Labor deputy secretary Cinta Kaipat.
Labor is also making good progress in placing U.S. citizens in jobs, she added in her interim progress report submitted Wednesday last week to the Legislature on the implementation of the Public Law 15-108. Kaipat was the author of the controversial labor reform law when she was a congresswoman.
She said the repatriation of 16,000-plus foreign workers in 2006, 2007, and 2008 was an enormous administrative task that involved completing labor cases, securing repatriation tickets, and making voluntary arrangements for departures.
“The department has done this work quietly and efficiently, working cooperatively with foreign workers and their representatives to accommodate hardship concerns and to honor requests for the timing of repatriation,” Kaipat said.
Labor is not involved in any non-voluntary departures as the Immigration Division handles deportations.
The deputy secretary said Labor has assisted Immigration by using its new automation system to generate quarterly overstayers lists.
The lists, when published, she said, assist in obtaining voluntary departures or correction of the records for those whose status entitles them to remain in the CNMI.
On hiring local residents or U.S. citizens, Kaipat said they initially reported only those U.S. citizens who came to Labor in person for assistance in finding a job.
However, she said, they have improved their website so that they can report on all U.S. citizens who find jobs with the assistance of Labor either through the website or through in-person assistance.
“Our new capabilities will allow us to review resumes posted online by persons who have not come to the office,” Kaipat said.
Labor also added the capability for employers to more easily create lists of potential U.S. citizen candidates who have the qualifications for the job to be filled.
Kapat said that since October 2008, they have processed transfer requests for 615 foreign workers who have been displaced from their jobs by U.S. citizen hires.
“That is only one informal measure of our success because not every foreign worker who is displaced elects to request permission to transfer; some elect to be repatriated,” she added.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Local
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Labor to new alien workers: No orientation, no permit
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor has been conducting hearings for the revocation of work permits issued to alien workers who entered the CNMI after Jan. 1, 2008, and failed to attend an orientation session within a week of arrival. The cutoff marks the effective date of Public Law 15-108, the new labor reform law.
“We gave these workers two weeks in which to complete the orientation requirement and those who failed to do so have had their entry permits revoked and have been repatriated,” according to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat.
The new labor reform law, which was authored by then Rep. Kaipat, requires orientation for every alien worker entering the Commonwealth.
Labor conducts orientation sessions for newly arrived alien workers every Tuesday mornings since the regulations became effective on Feb. 1, 2008.
During the sessions, foreign workers hear a presentation on their rights and responsibilities under CNMI law. Labor personnel question them about their job situation.
“We have discovered workers entering with phony documents, workers entering with no employer, workers entering with documents describing one job but the actual work appears to be a different job, and many variations on these themes,” Kaipat said. (Ferdie de la Torre)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Labor to new alien workers: No orientation, no permit
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor has been conducting hearings for the revocation of work permits issued to alien workers who entered the CNMI after Jan. 1, 2008, and failed to attend an orientation session within a week of arrival. The cutoff marks the effective date of Public Law 15-108, the new labor reform law.
“We gave these workers two weeks in which to complete the orientation requirement and those who failed to do so have had their entry permits revoked and have been repatriated,” according to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat.
The new labor reform law, which was authored by then Rep. Kaipat, requires orientation for every alien worker entering the Commonwealth.
Labor conducts orientation sessions for newly arrived alien workers every Tuesday mornings since the regulations became effective on Feb. 1, 2008.
During the sessions, foreign workers hear a presentation on their rights and responsibilities under CNMI law. Labor personnel question them about their job situation.
“We have discovered workers entering with phony documents, workers entering with no employer, workers entering with documents describing one job but the actual work appears to be a different job, and many variations on these themes,” Kaipat said. (Ferdie de la Torre)
Friday, December 5, 2008
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Local
Saturday, December 06, 2008
'Labor does excellent job in detecting sponsorships'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor has been doing an excellent job in detecting sponsorship scams, according to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat.
In her another interim progress report on the implementation of the controversial Public Law 15-108 (new labor reform law), Kaipat told the Legislature that Labor Director Barry Hirsbein is doing “an outstanding job” of finding sham sponsorships in the employers' applications that are submitted to Labor.
Kaipat said the director and his staff review 4,000 to 5,000 applications a month, and they identify about 300 to 400 questionable applications in an average quarter.
“Those applications are turned down, and some appealed,” she said.
The deputy secretary said they have also succeeded in reducing the number of alien workers in Temporary Work Authorization status.
Kaipat said they have done this by cleaning up all the pending cases from 2007 and prior years, and by instituting new rules for cases pending elsewhere.
“When workers file cases in federal or Commonwealth courts, the Labor Department asks for a court order if the worker is to be permitted to remain in the Commonwealth while out of status,” she said.
Kaipat said they allow alien workers who have cases with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Review Board, and U.S. Labor to obtain TWAs without any affirmative action from the adjudicating agency, but that they are considering changing that policy.
“The EEOC alone has more than 100 pending cases from the CNMI that were filed in 2006 and prior years and they have no estimate when they might reach these cases,” she pointed out.
Local
Saturday, December 06, 2008
'Labor does excellent job in detecting sponsorships'
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor has been doing an excellent job in detecting sponsorship scams, according to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta Kaipat.
In her another interim progress report on the implementation of the controversial Public Law 15-108 (new labor reform law), Kaipat told the Legislature that Labor Director Barry Hirsbein is doing “an outstanding job” of finding sham sponsorships in the employers' applications that are submitted to Labor.
Kaipat said the director and his staff review 4,000 to 5,000 applications a month, and they identify about 300 to 400 questionable applications in an average quarter.
“Those applications are turned down, and some appealed,” she said.
The deputy secretary said they have also succeeded in reducing the number of alien workers in Temporary Work Authorization status.
Kaipat said they have done this by cleaning up all the pending cases from 2007 and prior years, and by instituting new rules for cases pending elsewhere.
“When workers file cases in federal or Commonwealth courts, the Labor Department asks for a court order if the worker is to be permitted to remain in the Commonwealth while out of status,” she said.
Kaipat said they allow alien workers who have cases with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Review Board, and U.S. Labor to obtain TWAs without any affirmative action from the adjudicating agency, but that they are considering changing that policy.
“The EEOC alone has more than 100 pending cases from the CNMI that were filed in 2006 and prior years and they have no estimate when they might reach these cases,” she pointed out.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Labor proposes amendments to employment rules, regulations
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor is seeking public comments to its proposed amendments to current employment rules and regulations.
Labor filed the proposed rules and regulations to introduce changes to the current rules and regulations before the Commonwealth Registrar's Office.
According to Labor Secretary Gil M. San Nicolas, the proposed revisions are intended to incorporate emergency regulations for the implementation of the federalization cap and the exclusion of unskilled workers.
In Labor's public notice, San Nicolas said the proposed revisions are also to renumber the regulations to conform with the numbering system adopted for the NMI Administrative Code.
The other goal, he said, is to incorporate new practices brought about by the implementation of the automated processing system and interactive website that are now integral parts of Labor.
Labor says the proposed rules and regulations are promulgated due to the following reasons:
- To implement the changes that have arisen because Labor has changed its procedures as it brought its new automated processing online and covered certain operations to its new interactive website.
- In response to requests that certain revisions should be made from participants in the community meetings that Labor convened to discuss the first six months of operation under the new labor law.
Anyone who wishes to provide comments to the proposed rules and regulations may send their comments to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta M. Kaipat at DepSec2@gmail.com with the subject line “New ERAR”.
Comments are due within 30 days from Sept. 25, 2008, which is the date of publication of the notice.
Labor proposes amendments to employment rules, regulations
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
The Department of Labor is seeking public comments to its proposed amendments to current employment rules and regulations.
Labor filed the proposed rules and regulations to introduce changes to the current rules and regulations before the Commonwealth Registrar's Office.
According to Labor Secretary Gil M. San Nicolas, the proposed revisions are intended to incorporate emergency regulations for the implementation of the federalization cap and the exclusion of unskilled workers.
In Labor's public notice, San Nicolas said the proposed revisions are also to renumber the regulations to conform with the numbering system adopted for the NMI Administrative Code.
The other goal, he said, is to incorporate new practices brought about by the implementation of the automated processing system and interactive website that are now integral parts of Labor.
Labor says the proposed rules and regulations are promulgated due to the following reasons:
- To implement the changes that have arisen because Labor has changed its procedures as it brought its new automated processing online and covered certain operations to its new interactive website.
- In response to requests that certain revisions should be made from participants in the community meetings that Labor convened to discuss the first six months of operation under the new labor law.
Anyone who wishes to provide comments to the proposed rules and regulations may send their comments to Labor Deputy Secretary Cinta M. Kaipat at DepSec2@gmail.com with the subject line “New ERAR”.
Comments are due within 30 days from Sept. 25, 2008, which is the date of publication of the notice.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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.”
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.”
Sunday, September 7, 2008
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
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Periodic Exit Exemption
Tuesday March 4, 2008
Maharlika
Saturday, March 01, 2008
LABOR FRONT
The periodic exit exemption
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Q: How can an employer get a key employee exemption pursuant to the periodic exit requirement?
A: According to the rules and regulations of the Public Law 15-108 (new labor reform law), employers who carry out the periodic exit requirement of at least 20 percent of the exit-eligible work force during the period from Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2008 will be able to claim a key employee exemption for an additional three percent of the full-time work force.
Employers who carry out the periodic exit requirement of at least 30 percent of the exit-eligible work force from Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009 shall be able to claim a key employee exemption for an additional two percent of their exit-eligible work force.
* * *
Q: When can employers with only one exit-eligible employee accomplish the periodic exit for that worker?
A: According to the regulations, employers with only one exit-eligible worker should make the periodic exit for that employee no later than Sept. 30, 2009 unless alternative arrangements are made with the Labor Director before June 30, 2009. The Labor Director will accommodate reasonable requests based on personal needs, scheduling problems, vacation or school requirements, or other factors.
* * *
Q: What will happen if Labor finds that periodic exits have not been accomplished by September 2008?
A: The regulations state that in the event Labor determines that periodic exits have not begun or been accomplished by at least 30 percent of the exit-eligible alien workers by Sept. 30, 2008, Labor will hold a lottery.
The lottery will determine which exit-eligible alien workers shall begin the periodic exit during the period Jan. 1, 2009 through March 30, 2009 in order to ensure that a sufficient number of exits will occur in order to keep the exit program on schedule so that there is no bunching of exits at the end of the initial three-year period.
In the event that Labor finds out that periodic exits have not begun by at least 60 percent of the exit-eligible foreign workers by Sept. 30, 2009, Labor will hold a lottery. The lottery's purpose is to determine which exit eligible alien workers shall begin the periodic exit during the period Jan. 1, 2010 through March 30, 2010 in order to keep the exit program on schedule so that there is no bunching of exits at the end of the initial three-year period.
Disclaimer: Readers should conduct their own research and due diligence and obtain professional legal advice. Saipan Tribune will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by a reader's reliance on information obtained from this section. Submit questions on labor issues to Saipan Tribune via e-mail at editor@saipantribune.com, or by calling 235-6397, 235-2440, or 235-8747 and leaving a message at Ext. 133 or 135. You may also submit questions in person by writing it down and dropping it off at the Saipan Tribune's office on the second floor of the CIC Centre on Beach Road, Garapan.
Maharlika
Saturday, March 01, 2008
LABOR FRONT
The periodic exit exemption
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Q: How can an employer get a key employee exemption pursuant to the periodic exit requirement?
A: According to the rules and regulations of the Public Law 15-108 (new labor reform law), employers who carry out the periodic exit requirement of at least 20 percent of the exit-eligible work force during the period from Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2008 will be able to claim a key employee exemption for an additional three percent of the full-time work force.
Employers who carry out the periodic exit requirement of at least 30 percent of the exit-eligible work force from Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009 shall be able to claim a key employee exemption for an additional two percent of their exit-eligible work force.
* * *
Q: When can employers with only one exit-eligible employee accomplish the periodic exit for that worker?
A: According to the regulations, employers with only one exit-eligible worker should make the periodic exit for that employee no later than Sept. 30, 2009 unless alternative arrangements are made with the Labor Director before June 30, 2009. The Labor Director will accommodate reasonable requests based on personal needs, scheduling problems, vacation or school requirements, or other factors.
* * *
Q: What will happen if Labor finds that periodic exits have not been accomplished by September 2008?
A: The regulations state that in the event Labor determines that periodic exits have not begun or been accomplished by at least 30 percent of the exit-eligible alien workers by Sept. 30, 2008, Labor will hold a lottery.
The lottery will determine which exit-eligible alien workers shall begin the periodic exit during the period Jan. 1, 2009 through March 30, 2009 in order to ensure that a sufficient number of exits will occur in order to keep the exit program on schedule so that there is no bunching of exits at the end of the initial three-year period.
In the event that Labor finds out that periodic exits have not begun by at least 60 percent of the exit-eligible foreign workers by Sept. 30, 2009, Labor will hold a lottery. The lottery's purpose is to determine which exit eligible alien workers shall begin the periodic exit during the period Jan. 1, 2010 through March 30, 2010 in order to keep the exit program on schedule so that there is no bunching of exits at the end of the initial three-year period.
Disclaimer: Readers should conduct their own research and due diligence and obtain professional legal advice. Saipan Tribune will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by a reader's reliance on information obtained from this section. Submit questions on labor issues to Saipan Tribune via e-mail at editor@saipantribune.com, or by calling 235-6397, 235-2440, or 235-8747 and leaving a message at Ext. 133 or 135. You may also submit questions in person by writing it down and dropping it off at the Saipan Tribune's office on the second floor of the CIC Centre on Beach Road, Garapan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
