I did not change my position on umbrella permits. I said that I would not recommend signing the permits until major questions were answered including the main question of whether or not they conflict with CNMI or federal laws.
I would not recommend that guest workers sign the permits as long as the guest workers must agree to cover the costs of their repatriation and health care. These benefits were promised to the workers when they left their homelands. These provisions are a vital part of a legal contractual agreement that was approved by DOL. If employers and bonding companies fail, if the 96 days set by the court opinion expires, then it should be the responsibility of the CNMI government to cover these costs, rather than the impoverished foreign contract workers.
Guest workers have reported that there are no jobs available. Will umbrella permits magically make jobs appear?
What will happen if DOL decides there will be no more extensions and those without jobs must be repatriated, yet the guest have no money to cover the costs? How can a person who has been unemployed for months suddenly come up with airfare or medical costs? It will be especially difficult, if not impossible, for those who are staying to collect the unpaid wages that they are owed. Isn’t it an additional slap in the face for guest workers whose employers cheated them to have to sign a paper letting those very same employers off the hook for these contractual obligations too?
It appears that the attorneys who penned this permit assume that the responsibility for covering these expenses will shift from the employers, to the bonding companies, to the poor employees and ultimately to the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers. It is interesting that the CNMI government was left out of this equation.
Ms. Siemer said, “Wendy is wrong on another count. This requirement with respect to medical expenses and repatriation expenses is not new.” Ms. Siemer was not truthful again. I never said that it was new. She said, “Wendy elected not to participate in the process of developing this program. That is her right. And she elected not to give us her views about medical expenses and repatriation expenses while we were considering this issue.”
This is also not true. Ms. Siemer failed to tell the readers that I acknowledged over a month before this umbrella permit proposal ever came out that DOL was requesting workers to agree to this very same provision when they applied for a renewal extension.
In fact, I did give my views. I asked Ms. Siemer to remove it from the transfer cover sheet. On Sept. 3, 2009 I sent her an e-mail stating this: “The cover sheet violates P.L. 15-108 Section 4954(a) which states ‘the last employer of record of a foreign worker shall be responsible for the cost of repatriating the worker.’ You cannot have guest workers sign that paper, because it is a violation of the law. Why doesn’t DOL go after the employers and ensure that they have a return ticket? How can a poor worker even be expected to come up with money for a ticket? That is totally unreasonable. I am certain that this cover sheet is what the guest workers have been complaining about. Please remove this statement about repatriation from the cover sheet.”
After several workers and leaders of guest worker groups contacted me to complain, I asked an attorney for a legal opinion on this policy. I was told that it was not legal as it conflicts with P.L. 15-108, the labor law that Ms. Siemer helped to write. So why on earth would she even think that I would support such a provision now if I previously stated it was illegal and even asked for it to be removed from transfer cover sheets? She absolutely knew my position. She ignored it.
This agreement in the permit does not mention a time span or say it kicks in after 96 days. It simply states: “Seeking employment: This permit may be revoked under circumstances when the holder is not employed and is seeking employment unless the holder makes diligent efforts to locate full time employment suitable to the holder’s skills and abilities and finds an employer within a reasonable time. While seeking employment, the holder of this permit is responsible for all medical and repatriation expenses for the holder and any sponsored alien immediate relatives and for the full support of any minor children, and the holder will maintain sufficient resources or provide a sufficient bond or undertaking by a financially responsible third party to meet these obligations. CNMI law provides no right to an extension of time to seek employment; each request is considered by a hearing officer on the merits of the written request as to whether employment is likely to be obtained within a reasonable time and any risk to the Commonwealth has been met.”
The entire permit raises questions. Where is there a mention of after 96 days? What is a reasonable length of time to find a new employer — a day, a week, a month or until a person is starving? What kind of legal document contains ambiguous language like this?
Ms. Siemer asked me to work with “them” after the May hearing. It is true that I declined. I responded saying this: “As you may know, my human rights work is something I have been committed to since 1988 and I continue to perform on my own time with my own personal funds. For that reason I am very selective in my activities and focus. Both my time and funds are limited. My primary goals are: to are ensure that the foreign contract workers are treated fairly and respectfully and are viewed as valued members of the community and future citizens, not as replaceable commodities; to encourage a federal immigration system implemented with a just and democratic transitional guest worker program in the CNMI; and to ensure that all long-term (five or more years) foreign contract workers who come to the U.S. (including the CNMI) to work are provided a pathway to U.S. citizenship. I seriously do not believe that you and I have the same goals. I see your work as supporting the Fitial administration’s goals of trying to maintain the local system, which promotes indentured servitude and has allowed the theft of labor from innocent foreigners. You want to maintain that system; I want to replace it. I do not think it would advance my goals or benefit the foreign contract workers for me to collaborate with you. It became quite clear to me, and to many of the foreign workers that your intentions with the forums on ‘local status’ were to advance Fitial administration goals, which are to prevent federalization and maintain the local system. If you think I am wrong on my views, I will certainly listen to what you have to say. But if our goals are so far apart, as I believe them to be, then I think my time would be better spent advancing my work in regard to promoting a just federal transitional program and ensuring that all foreigners who come to work on U.S. soil are treated justly and given a pathway to U.S. citizenship after five years duration.”
How very disingenuous to pretend that the umbrella permits are anything but an attempt to keep the maximum amount of guest workers in the CNMI for the maximum amount of time and to maintain local control the dysfunctional local labor system for as long as can be. The authors are not concerned that the economy has crashed, and these poor people who are requesting renewals have little hope of landing a position. They are not concerned that the workers do not qualify for federal assistance and are struggling to survive with no money.
If a person makes the choice to sign a permit, of course, I will respect that choice, but again, I would not recommend signing the permits until questions are answered. I understand that inquiries have been made to both local and federal officials requesting clarification on issues.
If the Fitial administration, its officials, and its volunteers were truly concerned with the welfare of the guest workers, stabilizing the CNMI economy, and ensuring a secure labor pool they would ask the Department of the Interior to recommend to the U.S. Congress that they immediately introduce legislation to grant every guest worker, and every alien in the CNMI a green card and direct pathway to citizenship.
WENDY L. DOROMAL
Human Rights Advocate
