Workers Compensation and Illegal Aliens
Special interest groups, blogs, and Big Media are lambasting the Utah Legislature and the Utah Labor Commission for a bill and rules (p. 127) concerning workers compensation benefits. The Tribune reports, “Thanks to the Republican, employer-friendly and developer-heavy Utah Legislature, [etc.].” Golly. Those information outlets argue that the statute and rules will unfairly hurt illegal aliens.
The reality, however, is that the bill and the rules won’t change a thing for illegal aliens regarding workers compensation benefits. Not a single thing.
Currently, an injured worker’s immigration status only matters (slightly) in permanent, total disability (PTD) cases (where the worker claims that his injury makes him unable to perform any work reasonably available). If other work is found to be reasonably available, the worker (illegal or 10th-generation American) does not receive PTD benefits. The only difference between illegal and legal workers would be that in the case of a worker with legal status, the insurer would present a witness who would say, “Worker A can work at business X. He has the proper education, training, work experience, etc. He could start Wednesday.” In the case of a worker lacking legal status, the insurer would present a witness who would say, “Worker B could work at business X. He has the proper education, training, work experience, etc.. But, he lacks legal status to be hired there.”
So, how will that scenario change under the Morley bill and the Labor Commission rule? Well, it won’t.
So, the relevant inquiry to this little drama is – why the misinformation? Is it mistake or agenda?
To determine the ultimate reliability of sources of information, it is helpful to see how they respond when they were in the wrong and they misled the public. So, I’ll invite the ACLU, JM Bell, BrownViews, and the Tribune to print whatever rephrasing or retractions they deem appropriate to garner the same amount of attention, in order to illuminate, rather than mislead, the public.
posted by steve u. at 8/12/2008
Subscribe
7 Comments:
From Rolly's column:
"a construction company...can hire laborers...and if a laborer gets hurt the company can escape liability by having the insurance company throw out the benefits if the employee cannot prove he or she is in the country legally."
Are you arguing here that this situation could already occur before this bill was passed?
Cameron,
No. That's opposite of what I'm saying and opposite of the law. It's frustrating that such things get published and confuse the discussion. An injured illegal alien -- just like a worker with legal status -- will receive benefits, if the worker can show that no other work exists to match his/her level of education, experience, and residual physical abilities.
Representative Urquhart,
Thank you for helping to bring this issue into the public forum. I just finished reading the Q&A drafted by the Utah Labor Commission regarding this Worker's Compensation issue.
Although Commissioner Hayashi's Q&A does help to clarify what the proposed rule will do, I remain concerned that the rule will have a disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities, including immigrants without papers. Specifically, under the proposed rule employers may request a termination of temporary disability benefits by firing the employee under the pretense of any illegal activity (including working without proper immigration status.) This rule gives employers an incentive to cast doubt on the immigration status of their temporarily injured employees and lacks any penalty for an employer who manufactures false accusations against injured employees.
I agree with Commissioner Hayashi's statement that marginalizing racial and ethnic minorities was not the intent of this bill and the language could apply to all sorts of illegal activities of employees. But I take little comfort in a vague assurance that the rule's ambiguous language will not be misapplied. I am reminded of the analogy of getting permission to drive over the speed limit from a police officer friend. Just because that officer promised not to pull you over for speeding does not mean that another officer won't.
We will continue to encourage the Labor Commission to amend the rule so that it more closely matches the intent of the legislation without penalizing minority employees who are injured.
Protecting freedom and empowering Utahns,
William J. Carlson
Public Policy Advocate
ACLU of Utah
355 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
801-521-9862 ext. 108
wcarlson@acluutah.org
www.acluutah.org
Oooooooh! Steve U just got owned by the ACLU. Good on ya, guys.
What does a blogger have to do around here to considered Big Media? I'm as big as you, Rep Steve.
As an aside ... If I recall my post correctly, it finished with: "For more information about this proposal and who you can contact, please visit the ACLU website ..."
It did not end with "Rep. Steve is a giant Republican Jerk-face."
What is it about opposition that drives you so insane. Discourse if GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY. Opposition is supposed to lead to better government.
Your continued pissy-fits every time someone thinks you might not be inches from (legislative) translation, basking in the false-glory of your invented truth makes me a little sad.
OH! WAIT! I've got it! I asked people to educate themselves WITHOUT ASKING FOR A VOUCHER! Eureka!
:)
If you tire of the Democratic process, feel free to find yourself a third world country to overtake.
Mr. Carlson,
Thank you for your response. I'm glad you agree that the statute does not change things. As you well know (though some others might not), the statute governs, and a rule cannot supercede or contradict the statute. (Though, of course, a rule could be drafted and even interpreted in a way that causes problems or is even at odds with the statute).
So, let's make sure the rule conforms. (I think it does; but, I want to discuss your concerns with you). I'll give you a call this afternoon to discuss the matter; but, if you'd want to continue a bit of a dialogue here, that would be beneficial for my 3 loyal readers.
JM,
I'm going to have to file a workers compensation claim. I just hurt myself falling off my chair laughing at your tirade.
Though I wouldn't care if you disagreed with me, your post didn't say anything about me. Instead, your post said, "Help Fight Discriminatory Workers Compensation Proposal." I pointed out that it isn't discriminatory. Point/counterpoint. So, why the come apart?
It was the translation line, wasn't it? It's Tomato (Dem spelling), Tomatoe (GOP spelling)*.
If a piece of legislation targets one group over other groups for a denial of X-factor, it seems discriminatory to me.
Oh, and, as a leftist, I do everything thing the ACLU tells me to do, without question. Just like you right wing guys and the Sutherland Institute.**
*Ahhh... A Dan Quaile joke, how quaint.
**I use Sutherland because I know you don't do everything they ask. If I was not making a comical point, I would have used Gayle Ruzika. She gets everything she asks for. See? Ha ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home