Illegal workers: Are they entitled to sue? (For back wages)

[The Straight Story]

Illegal workers: Are they entitled to sue?

LAS VEGAS, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- A lawsuit filed in Las Vegas claims illegal immigrants are entitled to back wages, a legal point as yet unsettled, a prominent law professor said.

"The door is not shut until the Supreme Court shuts it," said William Gould, former chairman and professor emeritus at Stanford Law School said.

In Las Vegas, illegal workers have filled suit against Bravo Pro Maintenance, a cleaning company that workers say cheated them of wages and demanded 13-hour work days without paying overtime, the Las Vegas Sun reported Monday.

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard a case brought by an illegal immigrant, ruling in 2002 that the right to participate in union activity could "encourage … evasion of apprehension by immigration authorities."

However, lower courts have so far leaned in favor of granting illegal workers the right to sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the newspaper reported.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/08/31/Illegal-workers-Are-they-entitled-to-sue/UPI-77451251732286/

[endarkenment]

1. Yes of course. You cannot rob people even if they have done something illegal.

Like for example, jay walking, or littering. Jay workers and litters do not have a tag on their backs indicating that it is legal to rob them. Nor can one rob non-citizens. There is no citizenship qualification for basic rights.

[notadmblnd]

14. US employers of illegal aliens do it all the time.

I have family members that have gotten intimately involved with illegals. Some have their own form of justice. The few that I met would go and steal the employers equipment if they weren't paid. I'm talking, bobcats, trailers and other heavy equipment. One guy my niece was seeing, used the equipment to start his own landscaping business.

It's just too bad so many home and businesses had their lawns fertilized by purple kool-aid.

[endarkenment]

30. I meant in an ethical society. Obviously this is not that.

[Justyce]

2. Wouldn't they then be outing themselves as illegal & be

immediately deported? Sounds pretty risky...

[Common Sense Party]

9. Depends on the jurisdiction. In many places, the only time you'd

get deported is if you are caught committing a crime.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. I say no... and then fine the hell out of the employer

[RidinMyDonkey]

4. Absolutely

If you've done the work, you deserve the rewards.

[The Straight Story]

6. Would that be like suing your drug dealer for not paying you for your sales

:rofl:

[Recursion]

11. The crime is in *hiring* an undocumented worker

Someone working without a green card isn't breaking a law. The person hiring him or her is.

[RidinMyDonkey]

31. You think Illegal workers are equivalent to drug dealers?

They are in the country illegally, not working an illegal job. Despite how they got here, I believe they're entitled to fair wages and a fair trial if need be.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. The best argument for allowing it

other than that it is fair to the worker, is that presumed freedom from liability is one of the reasons employers hire undocumented workers in the first place. The fewer incentives that employers have to exploit undocumented workers rather than hiring documented workers the better for everyone.

[Turbineguy]

7. The method goes like this:

Hire Illegal Aliens. Just before pay time, call INS. Illegals get rolled up and work for free.

Give savings to Repub candidates for office.

[Common Sense Party]

8. I'm no fan of illegal immigration, which needs to stop

But these are real people with real families and real needs.

They provided real labor to an employer and were expecting real and just compebsation for their time and labor.

The employer is stealing from them by not paying them what they earned.

[Recursion]

10. FLSA doesn't care about the documentation of the workers

It's kind of a double-whammy for the scumbag employer: he has to pay back the workers he exploited, and face the consequences of hiring them without documentation. Sounds good to me.

[treestar]

12. I think they should just all be legalized

It is the only way to level the playing field. If they had to be paid minimum wage and work under conditions required under law, it wouldn't be cheaper to hire them.

And they could cross the border at will that way, go home for medical treatment and for visits which would stimulate the travel industry.

[pampango]

13. You're thinking like a European now with that "open borders" stuff.

;)

That works in Europe where France allows Germans, Bulgarians, Poles, and other Europeans to cross their border at will. Since WWII Europeans have constructed very progressive societies with national health care, social safety nets, corporate regulation and progressive taxation, so freedom of movement seems to work there, even though some of the newer members of the EU are much less developed than the founding members. They have learned the hard way that it is better for your neighbors to be prosperous (why they have free trade with each other) and open to each others' goods and people rather than treating neighbors like potential job thieves whose goods and people have to be kept out.

Americans, even some progressive ones, worry more about what foreigners will take from us. The whole "we're all in this together" approach to regional trade and immigration is more of a European concept than an American one.

[closeupready]

15. Also, the notion of portability of labor works against the interests of the elite class.

They only want "free trade" which allows them to ship jobs from the First World to where it's dirt cheap. They DON'T want labor on a global scale (or even, for that matter, on a regional scale) organizing so as to demand better compensation.

[Romulox]

18. Wrong. This country was FOUNDED on a one way flow of cheap labor.

It's the basic fabric of our culture--a neverending hunger for new infusions of cheap labor, which are allowed to flow freely. There are strict regulations as to the migration of native citizens into other nations, however. This is as designed.

[closeupready]

21. Oh wait - I got it backwards. lol

Thanks for the correction - your argument is unassailable. :hi:

[Romulox]

22. The US Chamber of Commerce is a strong advocate of open borders.

By your reasoning, the monied elite should be clamoring for a border clamp down. They have quite self-evidentally not done so--quite the contrary. Big business routinely argues that the costs of controlling immigration and regulating our labor pool are simply too high.

So your argument simply doesn't fit the data. :shrug:

[closeupready]

24. No, I was confused.

Disregard my initial argument. You are correct. My mind was attacking a point that hadn't been made, lol. :D Hey, it's Monday.

[Romulox]

17. Europe doesn't have "open borders" with Mexico. So there must be *some* limit?

:hi:

[pampango]

23. Indeed. In Europe's case it seems to be limited to their continent.

Though there are negotiations to expand the EU into more countries, so who knows where it will stop.

:)

[Romulox]

25. But North Africa is closer to Italy, say, than some other EU members...

Is your argument based on nothing more than expediency via geographic proximity? That's not really an argument that is supported by the structure of the EU; the EU doesn't have open borders with North Africa or Asia, despite geographical proximity. :hi:

[pampango]

38. EU countries only have open borders with countries who are members of the EU.

They don't have open borders with any North African or Asian (though they arguably will if Turkey - mostly Asian and Muslim - is admitted) countries (nor with the US and Canada) because they don't belong to the EU.

In recent years every time new countries join the EU the new members are poorer than the countries that allowed them to join. Some Americans might argue that it is not wise to open your borders to the people and goods of poorer countries. Europeans with their more progressive societies, don't seem to mind (as much as we do) that poorer new members might benefit from admission to the EU more than the relatively wealthy existing members. The EU has recently admitted countries that are poorer than Mexico (Bulgaria and Romania) into the EU and opened their borders to them, so it is not that they just admit wealthy countries.

[Romulox]

40. And US states have open borders with US states. Any other axioms you'd like to offer?

Why are there no African states in the EU?

And what's stopping Mexico from joining the EU seeing as how "Europeans with their more progressive societies, don't seem to mind (as much as we do) that poorer new members might benefit from admission to the EU more than the relatively wealthy existing members." :hi:

[pampango]

44. Why are there are no African, North/South American or Asian countries in the European Union?

You do ask the tough questions. ;)

If you wish to argue that the purpose of the EU is other than to promote peace and prosperity in Europe, please feel free to do so. I am not sure how allowing Mexico, the US, South Africa or Taiwan to join the EU (assuming any of them were even interested) enhances Europe's peace and prosperity.

[Romulox]

45. You're stumbling towards the point, but you've got to do some of the work yourself.

"I am not sure how allowing Mexico, the US, South Africa or Taiwan to join the EU (assuming any of them were even interested) enhances Europe's peace and prosperity."

And I am not sure how entering into an economic union with Mexico will enhance the US' peace and prosperity. Do you see any parallels? Or do you need it further spelled out for you?

At any rate, you were touting European's alleged selflessness up thread. For some odd reason, however, you find it entirely natural that despite the fact that "Europeans with their more progressive societies, don't seem to mind (as much as we do) that poorer new members might benefit from admission to the EU more than the relatively wealthy existing members," inviting a Morocco, say, or Mexico to join the EU is out of the question.

What exactly is the organizing principle you espouse? It's not based on geography (Morocco) or need (Mexico), then what exactly is it based on? You simply need to articulate your point better.

[pampango]

46. The point is that the EU invited Bulgaria and Romania to join and both are poorer than Mexico.

Existing EU members must believe that allowing Bulgaria and Romania to join the EU with its open borders and free trade would enhance Europe's peace and prosperity not just benefit the existing members. If American progressives ran the EU, they probably have looked at those two countries and said "They are too poor (even poorer than Mexico) to add anything to our prosperity. What's in it for us? No way you two are getting in." Our guest progressives would have urged EU countries to not only keep Bulgaria and Romania out, but to pass legislation to make it more difficult for nationals of those countries to "steal" EU jobs and for their products to "unfairly" compete with those of EU workers.

Europeans must define "prosperity" as including how well your neighbors on the continent live even if those neighbors do not live within the national borders of old EU member countries. There is something progressive about defining prosperity in such an inclusive manner.

For us to see any benefit to an "economic union" with Mexico we would have to have an interest in the prosperity of our continent not just our country, like the Europeans do. In other words, it ain't very likely. (That's something we probably agree on.) :)

I'm sure that my "stumbling" leaves you unfulfilled, but it's all I have time for.

[Iggo]

16. They oughta be.

They're here illegally. But they did the work.

[Romulox]

19. If illegals can be cheated with impunity, it makes hiring them more attractive to employers

More "race to the bottom" material.

[TahitiNut]

41. That's why the corporatist 'establishment' will deny them recourse.

:shrug:

Two wrongs don't make a right ... but wrongs flock to the right.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. I'm sure they have every right to sue

in the countries of their origin.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Neither the employer nor the illegal alien should profit from the arrangement

No money should go to the illegal aliens. The money that the employer should have paid (minimum wage) should be paid as a fine.

[Romulox]

28. Then the illegal aliens have a tort claim for unjust enrichment..

"The money that the employer should have paid (minimum wage) should be paid as a fine."

Your "punishment" means that it is always efficient to cheat: there's every livelihood one won't be caught cheating vulnerable workers, but if you are the "fine" is simply what you should've paid in the first place.

That's not a punishment at all, it's a built in incentive to break the rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Then throw both the employer and the illegal alien in jail

There needs to be a strong disincentive for both sides.

[closeupready]

32. That fails to account for the fact that one party is almost always wealthier and more powerful

- the employer.

And the illegal alien counts on these wages not to buy a yacht or mink coat but food, diapers, rent.

Taking that away from the alien is unfair and cruel. Instead, think about 1) making the employer pay the alien; and 2) fine the employer an equal amount as a fine.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. There needs to be a strong disincentive on both sides of the equation

Discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and discourage illegal aliens from coming here to work.

[closeupready]

36. I agree that the solution needs to be two-fold. That is,

if you are going to penalize the alien, then you need to penalize the employer equally. Conversely, if you are going to go easy on the employer, then you can't fairly go hard on the alien.

So I agree with you.

[Kansas Wyatt]

27. Employers hire illegals to undercut legal competitors.

While I am against illegal workers being "allowed" to work in this country, I'm even more against the employers who hire illegals to undercut wages and make an unfair profit. So, the employer should be forced to pay the back wages and also be heavily fined for hiring illegal workers.

As far as illegals joining unions... They've already shown that they cannot follow the law, let alone union rules. Union leaders may love to see the increase in dues it would yield, but it applies more pressure and hurts the rank and file, who have already followed the law and rules. It just adds fuel to the fire when non-union claims that union leaders do not give a shit about their members, especially when it does harm the rank and file.

[Taitertots]

29. Let them sue

They can take the money they get back with them to Mexico after being deported. Then fine the company that hired them out of business to cover deportation costs.

[anigbrowl]

35. Yes

The case establishing this is Galdames, et al. v. N & D Investment Corp.
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1638

[bat country]

37. In general, courts are forbidden from adjudicating

illegal contracts. That's why you cannot sue your drug dealer or try to get a court to enforce a wager you made with a buddy. If it illegal for an illegal alien to contracrt his services, it would be difficult to enforce backpay obligations absent enabling legislation.

[Romulox]

43. There's no invalid or "illegal" about working for money.

Any illegality is with regards to reporting activities or tax fraud, not in the agreement of a man to put in 8 hours work for X dollars. The court can (and must) force employers to pay promised wages, regardless of the recipient. Any other solution promotes the hiring of illegal labor.

Moreover, an employer cannot point to his own unlawful behavior as a defense to a legitimate debt.

[spin]

39. I hope they sue and WIN...

assholes should not be exploiting illegal aliens.

That's why we can't get an honest immigration bill, companies and rich people love slaves to abuse.

[rucky]

42. Shouldn't the employers go to jail for this?

The "issue" debated in the article detracts from a real and more serious issue: Why aren't states prosecuting the employers?