DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
The purpose of hiring an illegal is typically for financial gain: pay the worker less than usual, not pay social security and other taxes.
Meg Whitman got no financial gain out of hiring what turned out to be an illegal, undocumented worker. The facts suggest that the housekeeper hoodwinked her employer.
Let’s say that you, Meg Whitman, live at 24 Edge Road, Atherton, CA and want a housekeeper. You go to an employment agency that you trust. The agency, which presumably checks backgrounds, recommends several persons.
You hire a Latina recommended by your employment agency. You pay the Latina housekeeper $23 an hour. You pay her social security and give her a W2 each year. She and you are on a first name basis. You like her and presumably she likes you.
Years later, the housekeeper confesses to you that she is illegal, that she gave you a relative’s social security number. Your response? You fire her. When you do, you are running for governor of California.
How will this shake out? Jerry Brown says he wants Meg Whitman to admit a mistake and move on. Are Mexican Americans more likely to vote for Jerry Brown because Meg Whitman hired an undocumented, illegal worker and supposedly exploited her?
No exploitation appears to have occurred on Meg Whitman’s part. $23 an hour is a decent wage. Lots of college graduates are not making that wage. Living in Atherton the housekeeper lived and worked in a pleasant environment.
Has Jerry Brown’s campaign exploited the housekeeper? By going public this woman may face deportation by immigration and federal penalties from social security for falsifying documents.
So who is paying for the law suit against Meg Whitman? Some third party fronting the money to liven up the campaign in Brown’s favor?
The Oct. 2, 2010 Santa Cruz Sentinel states that the Service Employees Inernatonal Union (SEIU) spent $5 million for a Spanish language TV ad attacking Whitman for treatment of Diaz Santillan 12 hours after the story broke.
What do you think?
