Local politician says no to UCSC grad...

Local politician says no to UCSC graduation speech

There are 59 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jun 7, 2010, titled Local politician says no to UCSC graduation speech. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

A Bay Area politician who objects to the treatment of low-wage workers at University of California campuses has turned down an invitation to speak at a UC Santa Cruz graduation ceremony.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
disabuser

Oakland, CA

#43 Jun 7, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the information on the nuber of state workers (UC employees) that are illegal? Facts please.
You mean you want the UC's official statistic on illegal employees? That's a joke, right?
facts

Santa Cruz, CA

#44 Jun 7, 2010
A friend of mine is a custodian there. 1.He's a Santa Cruz native 2.He does work directly for the U.C. system 3. SEIU doesn't represent anyone at the university, the custodians have a different union. Good job, Ira!
falcon

Sunnyvale, CA

#45 Jun 7, 2010
This is not terribly newsworthy, unless of course you want to promote the union's position.

Naw, the Sentinel wouldn't do that, would they?
voter

Oakland, CA

#46 Jun 7, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
then like i said in the second post, you have a responsibility to go and report them to ice, i am sure you have a cellphone. call ice, report the illegal employees. if you do not, you are part of the problem, not a part of the solution. my father drove a fork lift to pay for law school when i was a kid, and my first job was washing dishes, my second job was a janitor. right now i do construction, i own my own business i do not hire illegals, what are you doing to create jobs, or give them back to americans? quit whining on topix and pick up your phone!
ICE is not only on my cell, but they are no. 4 on my speed dial. I think I'm almost on a first name basis with them. But for whatever that's worth, like I said before you usually have valid, lucid things to say. Not just always spewing from the mouth. And for the record, the comment to which you replied had no whining whatsoever. I was simply putting forth a sad but true fact. And the folks that hire illegals are more to blame than the illegals themselves. Of course they'll accept an offered job. I would in their position; most people would.
more facts please

Santa Cruz, CA

#47 Jun 7, 2010
facts wrote:
A friend of mine is a custodian there. 1.He's a Santa Cruz native 2.He does work directly for the U.C. system 3. SEIU doesn't represent anyone at the university, the custodians have a different union. Good job, Ira!
What's the "different union?"

Is this an apolitical union?

Or are you making a distinction that makes no real difference?
disabuser

Oakland, CA

#48 Jun 7, 2010
AFSCME is the union that negotiated for preserving the jobs of illegals at UC.
The Accountant

United States

#49 Jun 7, 2010
disabuser wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you want the UC's official statistic on illegal employees? That's a joke, right?
Its a joke to claim that there are some without facts.
UC staffer

Santa Cruz, CA

#51 Jun 7, 2010
disabuser wrote:
<quoted text>
AFSCME negotiated with UC to prevent the university from "discriminating" against workers based on their being illegal immigrants. Nice use of language: discriminating, as in refusing to continue the employment of illegal immigrants.
That may be, but you can't get hired without showing valid state ID and a Social Security number, or a US passport, which provides both citizenship and ID, or gov't ID and US immigration papers showing a right to work. As I said in post #24, if we've got people working here illegally, it is because they supplied fraudulaent ID documents.

My guess, and I'm not in HR, is that AFSCME and the protesters made a stink about illegal immigrants because of a custodian at Berkeley that was fired, precisely because it came to light he had fake documents.
Mary

Santa Cruz, CA

#52 Jun 7, 2010
It would be helpful to know what the salaries are--people should be paid a living wage and anything less is basically slavery.
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#53 Jun 7, 2010
UC staffer wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be, but you can't get hired without showing valid state ID and a Social Security number, or a US passport, which provides both citizenship and ID, or gov't ID and US immigration papers showing a right to work. As I said in post #24, if we've got people working here illegally, it is because they supplied fraudulaent ID documents.
My guess, and I'm not in HR, is that AFSCME and the protesters made a stink about illegal immigrants because of a custodian at Berkeley that was fired, precisely because it came to light he had fake documents.
Of course they provide fraudulent document, which have been cheap and widely available almost since it became against the law to employ illegal immigrants and required employers to get copies of the acceptable documents. The majority of illegal immigrants working work on the books this way. But most of those documents provided by illegal immigrants don't match government records and AFSCME wants the university to ignore notices from the government to that effect.
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#54 Jun 7, 2010
The Accountant wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a joke to claim that there are some without facts.
Here's the relevant passage from the factfinders report:
Article 21. Non-Discrimination in Employment. The Union seeks a contract
clause prohibiting the University from discriminating against workers based on their
immigration status. The terms of this proposal are drawn from model human rights
language that has been accepted and utilized within the hotel industry. The Union's
proposal would allow an employee to amend documents to cure presumed immigration
status. The proposed language also limits the University's role in the enforcement of
immigration laws. AFSCME asserts that the proposed contract language reflects the
current law regarding immigration; it does not go beyond what the law currently
provides. In sum, the Union seeks a contract provision that will allow an employee to
correct immigration documents without fear of retaliation.

Union witnesses explained that the names and Social Security numbers
maintained by the Social Security Administration have a 4 to 5 percent error rate and that
the SSA is not a federal agency charged with enforcement of immigration laws. When a
"no match" letter is received. it is the employer's obligation only to notify the employee.
The employer is not legally required to take any further action.
The University voiced concern over situations where an employee has come
forward and submitted an entirely new name and Social Security number. This may not
be the situation where a "no match'' letter has been received. Nor does the name and
number change appear to be the result of clerical error. Under these circuinstances, U.C.
seeks to maintain its authority to investigate the potential that the employee falsified
employment documentation using a false name or Social Security number. In such
instances, the University would want to retain the ability to discipline an employee who
falsifies an employment record, including names and Social Security numbers.
to be continued...
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#55 Jun 7, 2010
...
Discussion. There are two related but separate issues raised by this proposal. One
concern focuses on the University's response to receipt of a "no match" letter. In general,
the Factfinder urges the adoption of contract language that would clarify the University's
response in these situations. The "no match" language in Union Ex. 21B would achieve
this result. It directs the employer to notify the union and the employees listed on the "no
match" list. It provides that the employer post a notice advising employees of the
importance that names and Social Security numbers appear correctly on wage documents.
The language provides that the employer "will not take any adverse action against any
employee just because they are listed on the notice, including firing, laying off,
suspending, retaliating, or discriminating against any such employee." The language
states that the employer agrees not to require that the employees listed on the "no match"
notice provide a copy of their Social Security card for the employer's review, compete a
new 1-9 form, or provide new or additional proof of work authorization or immigration
status just because the employee is listed on the "no rnatcl~" notice. Finally, the language
states that the employer agrees not to contact the Social Security Administration or any
other governmental agency after receipt of the "no match" notice. The Factfinder
recommends that language drawn from this exhibit be enacted as part of the successor
agreement. These provisions are consistent with the University's responsibilities
following receipt of a "no match" letter. To bolster this language, the Factfinder also
recommends that new language be added to the non-discrimination provisions of the
contract that goes beyond race and national origin and protects employees from
discrimination based on immigration status - or perceived immigration status. This
would be a benefit to the employees in the service bargaining unit.
Separate from its reaction to receipt of a "no match" letter, the University
expressed legitimate concerns about its ability to continue to discipline employees who
falsify their employment records, including the 1-9 form. The panel believes that it is
important to address this concern and that there is a critical need for clear, easily
understood procedural rules. Hasty, poorly thought out reactions to real or perceived
questions about immigration status can carry serious disruptive consequences.
http://www.uaw-quad.org/drupal/files/archives...
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#56 Jun 8, 2010
Anybody wanting to weigh in on the view of this contract arrangement concerning the employment of illegal immigrants?
The Accountant

United States

#57 Jun 8, 2010
disabuser wrote:
Anybody wanting to weigh in on the view of this contract arrangement concerning the employment of illegal immigrants?
None of your posts states the number of illegal immigrants working for the UC system.
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#58 Jun 8, 2010
Are you being deliberately argumentative or do you really simply not understand? If there were a known number of illegal immigrant employees at any enterprise, then that employer would be subject to prosecution under the law. The "knowingly" requirement for prosecution is the barn door-size loophole in the charade of an employee eligibility verification system where ubiquitous fake document abound and work just fine for obtaining employment.

Most false documents, those not intended to steal the identities of real people entitled to employment, don't match the records of the Social Security Administration. That has led to the exponential growth of employees whose taxes aren't credited and instead go into what's call the "earning suspense file." There's universal agreement that the overwhelming percentage of employees of this group are illegal immigrants. So the federal government has information that is highly correlated with specific illegal immigrant employees and their employers but has chosen to not use it to stop that employment.

Social Security sends out "no match" letters to such employees and to employers who have 10 or more such employees. This initially led to illegal immigrants ceasing to be employed, as everyone naturally just assumed the jig was up. But decidedly mixed signals from the government about what employers were to do, along with education campaigns by open-borders activists (including UC's Labor Center) and lawyers on how to play the game quickly led to most employees included in "no match" letters remaining employed.

And that's what this contract issue was about. The union sought to have the university play the game with the kind of willful blindness that is all too common, doing as little as possible.

So while you can't get the number of UC illegal immigrant employees, the media, if it wasn't an open border advocate itself and instead exercised some journalistic integrity, could use the law to get UC to disclose the number of employees it has that have unresolved that have unresolved "no match" letters. But I've never found one article that even mentioned this contract dispute document regarding the issue of the employment of illegal immigrants. Newspapers aren't journalistic enterprises as much as they are agenda pushing organizations themselves. When journalism conflicts with their agenda, the former loses out.
loweroceanlocal

Santa Cruz, CA

#59 Jun 8, 2010
voter wrote:
<quoted text>
ICE is not only on my cell, but they are no. 4 on my speed dial. I think I'm almost on a first name basis with them. But for whatever that's worth, like I said before you usually have valid, lucid things to say. Not just always spewing from the mouth. And for the record, the comment to which you replied had no whining whatsoever. I was simply putting forth a sad but true fact. And the folks that hire illegals are more to blame than the illegals themselves. Of course they'll accept an offered job. I would in their position; most people would.
i agree with you that the people hiring the illegals should be prosecuted as well, unfortunately due to the ease of getting false documents it is near impossible to prosecute employers that hire them. i just get tired of people complaining on the internet and not doing anything about it, i applaud your efforts in calling ice
disabuser

San Jose, CA

#61 Jun 8, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree with you that the people hiring the illegals should be prosecuted as well, unfortunately due to the ease of getting false documents it is near impossible to prosecute employers that hire them. i just get tired of people complaining on the internet and not doing anything about it, i applaud your efforts in calling ice
I'd like to have an example of where calling ICE works and under what circumstance it's done. As I've written, when I called them I found disinterest in a self-confessed, pictured, and identified illegal immigrant in this newspaper. Such defiant, blatant and public disregard of the law didn't seem to concern them, which seem like a fairly clear message, both for illegal immigrants and the public about the important they give to being here illegally.

Since employers are protected by an employment eligibility verification system designed to fail, it seems to me that making a case for political reform, and the Internet can be a place for that, is what is necessary. Contrary to open border politician's favorite statement of late, that "our immigration system is broken", what we actually have is a broken political system and corrupt news media that collaborates with it.

I think the idea that individuals should be responsible for enforcement that will not work, just as politician intend, rather than getting a government that will represent them on illegal immigration is wrongheaded. That's why I write over and over for people who care not to focus on illegal immigrants but on the citizens of this country who are inviting them.
loweroceanlocal

Santa Cruz, CA

#62 Jun 8, 2010
disabuser wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to have an example of where calling ICE works and under what circumstance it's done. As I've written, when I called them I found disinterest in a self-confessed, pictured, and identified illegal immigrant in this newspaper. Such defiant, blatant and public disregard of the law didn't seem to concern them, which seem like a fairly clear message, both for illegal immigrants and the public about the important they give to being here illegally.
Since employers are protected by an employment eligibility verification system designed to fail, it seems to me that making a case for political reform, and the Internet can be a place for that, is what is necessary. Contrary to open border politician's favorite statement of late, that "our immigration system is broken", what we actually have is a broken political system and corrupt news media that collaborates with it.
I think the idea that individuals should be responsible for enforcement that will not work, just as politician intend, rather than getting a government that will represent them on illegal immigration is wrongheaded. That's why I write over and over for people who care not to focus on illegal immigrants but on the citizens of this country who are inviting them.
you are repeating yourself. i already responded to this. the squeaky wheel gets the grease. if enough people squeak their wheels at ice we will get action. if you sit on your but and say nothing nothing will happen. keep calling ice and demand attention. everyone should. if ice's phonelines are flooded with calls they will respond. it is the same with crime in santa cruz. everyone whined. and now they are responding. see how it works? citizens have a duty to report crime when they see it, even if the crime is just illegal immigration. if you saw a tresspasser at your neighbor's house would you do nothing, or would you call the police? i sure hope you are the kind of neighbor that would call the police, instead of saying that fighting crime was the police's job and sitting back down to your fox news program, or rush limbaugh radio show.
The Accountant

United States

#63 Jun 8, 2010
disabuser wrote:
Are you being deliberately argumentative or do you really simply not understand? If there were a known number of illegal immigrant employees at any enterprise, then that employer would be subject to prosecution under the law. The "knowingly" requirement for prosecution is the barn door-size loophole in the charade of an employee eligibility verification system where ubiquitous fake document abound and work just fine for obtaining employment.
Most false documents, those not intended to steal the identities of real people entitled to employment, don't match the records of the Social Security Administration. That has led to the exponential growth of employees whose taxes aren't credited and instead go into what's call the "earning suspense file." There's universal agreement that the overwhelming percentage of employees of this group are illegal immigrants. So the federal government has information that is highly correlated with specific illegal immigrant employees and their employers but has chosen to not use it to stop that employment.
Social Security sends out "no match" letters to such employees and to employers who have 10 or more such employees. This initially led to illegal immigrants ceasing to be employed, as everyone naturally just assumed the jig was up. But decidedly mixed signals from the government about what employers were to do, along with education campaigns by open-borders activists (including UC's Labor Center) and lawyers on how to play the game quickly led to most employees included in "no match" letters remaining employed.
And that's what this contract issue was about. The union sought to have the university play the game with the kind of willful blindness that is all too common, doing as little as possible.
So while you can't get the number of UC illegal immigrant employees, the media, if it wasn't an open border advocate itself and instead exercised some journalistic integrity, could use the law to get UC to disclose the number of employees it has that have unresolved that have unresolved "no match" letters. But I've never found one article that even mentioned this contract dispute document regarding the issue of the employment of illegal immigrants. Newspapers aren't journalistic enterprises as much as they are agenda pushing organizations themselves. When journalism conflicts with their agenda, the former loses out.
And after calling UC what answer did they give you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mysterious door rattling reported in county; ea... (Mar '09) Apr 18 liza 108
News Menlo Park: Teen wellness center opens doors Apr 9 Humanspirit 1
News Business Owners Raise More Complaints About Yelp (Dec '08) Apr 9 YELPSUCKS 94
News Renewable Energy Update - March 2017 #5 Apr 5 ThomasA 2
Did anybody know Robert Silveria? Apr 4 Hobo man 1
New years 95 Mar '17 Victor and adrian 1
News Portola Valley: Suspect in January residential ... Mar '17 Liberals are dumb 1

Redwood City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages