Whitman's housekeeper

Status
Not open for further replies.
TXgolfer said:
Ah....turns out Little Nicky DID lie. (DL, SS Card and I-9 form are at the bottom)

http://media.nbclosangeles.com/documents/Diaz+Forms.pdf

Oh and the SSA "letter" turns out to be an SSA form for asking for additional info on an employee.......It's a simple form that many people who run a business receive.

http://www.visaserve.com/CM/Articles/Request for Employer Information.pdf

Note the sentence
Click to expand...

Interesting...So in all of this, only the housekeeper broke laws and not Whitman/business who placed her in that home?


But still, if Whitman did "Let go" of the housekeeper in summer 2009, what was the reason for it then?
 
craigm26 said:
Interesting...So in all of this, only the housekeeper broke laws and not Whitman/business who placed her in that home?


But still, if Whitman did "Let go" of the housekeeper in summer 2009, what was the reason for it then?
Click to expand...

According to Whitman that is when the housekeeper came clean.

This actually says alot (bad) about the IRS and SSA. They form was sent in 2003....yet there is no record of any follow up. No audits. Nothing.

As for whether or not Whitman broke the law...She did a background check, checked references had a copy of DL,SS card and an I-9 form and reported her income to the IRS. She complied with the law. She even went beyond and filed W-2s where as most maids are given 1099's (mine is). She paid her well too.
 
"According to Whitman that is when the housekeeper came clean."

Yeah, "I don't know you and you don't know me" when she fired her.

She's an epic fail in debate.
 
TXgolfer said:
According to Whitman that is when the housekeeper came clean.

This actually says alot (bad) about the IRS and SSA. They form was sent in 2003....yet there is no record of any follow up. No audits. Nothing.

As for whether or not Whitman broke the law...She did a background check, checked references had a copy of DL,SS card and an I-9 form and reported her income to the IRS. She complied with the law. She even went beyond and filed W-2s where as most maids are given 1099's (mine is). She paid her well too.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. She, in effect, hired an illegal. Violation of the law. Period. If you are going to apply such black and white judgements against the illegal in this case, then you have to apply them to Whitman, as well.
 
jillio said:
Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. She, in effect, hired an illegal. Violation of the law. Period. If you are going to apply such black and white judgements against the illegal in this case, then you have to apply them to Whitman, as well.
Click to expand...

Did you see the content of the first link in post 19? What more could Whitman have done? Or anyone?
 
Tousi said:
Did you see the content of the first link in post 19? What more could Whitman have done? Or anyone?
Click to expand...

That would apply in numerous cases. Ignorance is still no excuse for violation of the law. That is a widely accepted premise. She is still guilty in the end.

If you wish to apply mitigating circumstances, then you must apply them equally in all cases.
 
jillio said:
That would apply in numerous cases. Ignorance is still no excuse for violation of the law. That is a widely accepted premise. She is still guilty in the end.

If you wish to apply mitigating circumstances, then you must apply them equally in all cases.
Click to expand...

Then, I guess she applied the mitigating elements since I haven't heard anything more about it. Have you?
 
Tousi said:
Then, I guess she applied the mitigating elements since I haven't heard anything more about it. Have you?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. Who applied the mitigating curcumstances?

I was referring to posters who use a black and white, right and wrong no matter approach to certain populations, but fail to do the same to those individuals with whom they hold favor.
 
jillio said:
That would apply in numerous cases. Ignorance is still no excuse for violation of the law. That is a widely accepted premise. She is still guilty in the end.

If you wish to apply mitigating circumstances, then you must apply them equally in all cases.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: That is not true at all.....and possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on AD. The IRS and SSA set the standard an employer must meet in verifying employees. She met the standard. I had to do the same thing in my business as well. And I had a few SS numbers kicked back too. Not only were there no ramifications.....I was still allowed to deduct the 1099 amount.....All I had to do was provide the copies of license,SS card and I-9 form to show I met my burden.

Ignorance of the law is the concept......not ignorance of your employees status. :lol:

IF she knew the worker was illegal but claimed she didn't know that hiring illegals was against the law......THEN ignorance of the law would apply.
 
TXgolfer said:
:laugh2: That is not true at all.....and possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on AD. The IRS and SSA set the standard an employer must meet in verifying employees. She met the standard. I had to do the same thing in my business as well. And I had a few SS numbers kicked back too. Not only were there no ramifications.....I was still allowed to deduct the 1099 amount.....All I had to do was provide the copies of license,SS card and I-9 form to show I met my burden.

Ignorance of the law is the concept......not ignorance of your employees status. :lol:

IF she knew the worker was illegal but claimed she didn't know that hiring illegals was against the law......THEN ignorance of the law would apply.
Click to expand...

The standards have virtually nothing to do with the concept of ignorance is not an excuse for violation of the law. Nor with applying mitigating circumstances. You seem to pick and choose the one you apply less than black and white reasoning to. And it would appear that the ones you apply it to are not liberal, non-white, and not heterosexual.:cool2:
 
jillio said:
The standards have virtually nothing to do with the concept of ignorance is not an excuse for violation of the law. Nor with applying mitigating circumstances. You seem to pick and choose the one you apply less than black and white reasoning to. And it would appear that the ones you apply it to are not liberal, non-white, and not heterosexual.:cool2:
Click to expand...

The standard IS the law. The government says you must do "these things" to verify that the employee is permited to work in the US.....she did them.....she's complied with the law....period. Otherwise what would be the purpose of collecting 2 IDs and an I-9 form..... :lol:
 
I-9 form for anyone that cares to take the time to read it.

Notice an employer CANNOT specify which IDs they will accept and that if an employee submits a cobination of IDs from list B and C (DL and SS card among others) an employer CANNOT ask for a copy of the resident alien card from list A. Also notice the PURPOSE of the form.
Also Employers are not required to make copies of those documents...... copies were made anyway. :)


http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf
 
If Whitman had questioned her housekeeper about her status would she have been accused of racial profiling?
 
Reba said:
If Whitman had questioned her housekeeper about her status would she have been accused of racial profiling?
Click to expand...

Very likely

The form I linked in post 19 which is the "letter" she received specifically says not to make that assumption as it might be a violation of federal law.

Also the instructions on the I-9 form suggest the employer should be cautious about what they ask. The instructions sound as if they are steering you AWAY from asking to much
 
Reba said:
If Whitman had questioned her housekeeper about her status would she have been accused of racial profiling?
Click to expand...

No. She would have had a valid reason for asking. Employment purposes. Racial profiling, by nature, is inquiry without valid purpose, based only on a set of superficial characteristics.
 
jillio said:
No. She would have had a valid reason for asking. Employment purposes. Racial profiling, by nature, is inquiry without valid purpose, based only on a set of superficial characteristics.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: Apparently you didn't read the "letter" (form) I specifically says that you should NOT question immigration status due to receipt of the letter and that it MAY be a violation of federal law to do so...
 
jillio said:
No. She would have had a valid reason for asking. Employment purposes. Racial profiling, by nature, is inquiry without valid purpose, based only on a set of superficial characteristics.
Click to expand...
Initially asking, perhaps. But once the applicant states that she is "legal" and shows documentation, then the employer can't continue to question the applicant about status.

Interesting that Whitman is taken to task for not questioning her housekeeper but Arizona policemen are taken to task for questioning people incident to their having broken laws.
 
Reba said:
Interesting that Whitman is taken to task for not questioning her housekeeper but Arizona policemen are taken to task for questioning people incident to their having broken laws.
Click to expand...

Excellent Point!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top