Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all the person hiring the contractor has to do is to tell the contractor that a condition of doing the work, is to make sure all workers are legal citizens of the USA. no discrimination there.
Read it again. That was not the issue. You could perfectly well demand the legal status of all employees on your job. Now that will likely get complicated quickly as there are also privacy statutes that vary by state that may well be violated if passport or green cards or even drivers licenses are shown to a client without the permission of the employee. YOu could demand that all employees be eligibile to work in the US and demand that the contractor sign a statement so agreeing...but that is not access to the actual status...just the contractors view.
You sure the EEO laws of the states are the same as the federales? Really?
Any worthy lawyer is going to sue the homeowner as well on such a thing as tortuous interference for getting into the employer/employee relationship of the contractor. The homeowners lawyer may or maynot be able to rescue him but the lawyers bill will have to be paid.
Discrimination is dangerous legally. You may find an exception that protects you. But the other side may find one that pulls you back in...and it is complex. At best though you escape after paying your lawyer a small fortune. Better not to go there.
You can't force someone to hire you. Here in CA you can fire someone at any time. No one in their right mind would admit to firing someone based on race. Never happen.
Read it again. That was not the issue. You could perfectly well demand the legal status of all employees on your job. Now that will likely get complicated quickly as there are also privacy statutes that vary by state that may well be violated if passport or green cards or even drivers licenses are shown to a client without the permission of the employee. YOu could demand that all employees be eligibile to work in the US and demand that the contractor sign a statement so agreeing...but that is not access to the actual status...just the contractors view.
You sure the EEO laws of the states are the same as the federales? Really?
Again, it is not a violation of EEO to demand that all workers assigned to your project have a legal right to work in this country. Not at the federal or state level. No one suggested the contractor should violate privacy laws by providing the homeowner with personal data on the workers. The contractor can simply state in writing that all members of the work crew have a legal status. It's just that simple. In fact, it's a routine procedure. Of course an unscrupulous contractor will lie about their status, but the homeowner certainly has the right to inquire.
When I interview contractors to work at my house, I request their license and proof of insurance, in addition to references. I also want the contractor to ensure that none of the workers have a criminal background. They certainly have the right to employ convicted felons. But, just don't send them to my house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertylover7
Any worthy lawyer is going to sue the homeowner as well on such a thing as tortuous interference for getting into the employer/employee relationship of the contractor. The homeowners lawyer may or maynot be able to rescue him but the lawyers bill will have to be paid.
Nonsense. A homeowner is well within the law to only want those with legal status to work on their property. That is certainly not discrimination. Clearly, you have little knowledge of what constitutes employment discrimination. EEOC would not even pursue such a frivolous case.
In case you don't know, it is a violation of Federal law for a contractor assigned to a government project to employ workers who do not have a legal right to work. So, how on earth would employees have grounds for a lawsuit if a private citizen demands the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertylover7
Discrimination is dangerous legally. You may find an exception that protects you. But the other side may find one that pulls you back in...and it is complex. At best though you escape after paying your lawyer a small fortune. Better not to go there.
Employment discrimination occurs every day of the week. In fact, some candidates' resumes are denied consideration simply due to their names, irrespective of qualifications. A name such as Shaquita comes to mind. Others are denied employment due to their age, despite laws prohibiting such practices. Sadly, these are standard operating procedures for some employers, because it is extremely difficult to prove. But, there's a huge difference between due diligence and discrimination.
Again, it is not a violation of EEO to demand that all workers assigned to your project have a legal right to work in this country. Not at the federal or state level. No one suggested the contractor should violate privacy laws by providing the homeowner with personal data on the workers. The contractor can simply state in writing that all members of the work crew have a legal status. It's just that simple. In fact, it's a routine procedure. Of course an unscrupulous contractor will lie about their status, but the homeowner certainly has the right to inquire.
When I interview contractors to work at my house, I request their license and proof of insurance, in addition to references. I also want the contractor to ensure that none of the workers have a criminal background. They certainly have the right to employ convicted felons. But, just don't send them to my house.
Nonsense. A homeowner is well within the law to only want those with legal status to work on their property. That is certainly not discrimination. Clearly, you have little knowledge of what constitutes employment discrimination. EEOC would not even pursue such a frivolous case.
In case you don't know, it is a violation of Federal law for a contractor assigned to a government project to employ workers who do not have a legal right to work. So, how on earth would employees have grounds for a lawsuit if a private citizen demands the same?
Employment discrimination occurs every day of the week. In fact, some candidates' resumes are denied consideration simply due to their names, irrespective of qualifications. A name such as Shaquita comes to mind. Others are denied employment due to their age, despite laws prohibiting such practices. Sadly, these are standard operating procedures for some employers, because it is extremely difficult to prove. But, there's a huge difference between due diligence and discrimination.
Someone can be turned down by being over qualified too. It may not be legal but how can someone prove that is why they got turned down.
Again, it is not a violation of EEO to demand that all workers assigned to your project have a legal right to work in this country. Not at the federal or state level. No one suggested the contractor should violate privacy laws by providing the homeowner with personal data on the workers. The contractor can simply state in writing that all members of the work crew have a legal status. It's just that simple. In fact, it's a routine procedure. Of course an unscrupulous contractor will lie about their status, but the homeowner certainly has the right to inquire.
Why don't you read the thread before you respond? It is given that you can demand that all workers on your project be legal. No one said otherwise.
You can't deal with the real issue...which was demanding documents for the non English speakers...so you make up a straw man you can deal with.
And while the contractor is lying to the government he would never lie to a client would he?
Quote:
When I interview contractors to work at my house, I request their license and proof of insurance, in addition to references. I also want the contractor to ensure that none of the workers have a criminal background. They certainly have the right to employ convicted felons. But, just don't send them to my house.
Iam not sure what requirements are for a contractor to check the criminal records of his employees. I suspect he can answer "no felons to the best of my knowledge".
Quote:
Nonsense. A homeowner is well within the law to only want those with legal status to work on their property. That is certainly not discrimination. Clearly, you have little knowledge of what constitutes employment discrimination. EEOC would not even pursue such a frivolous case.
In case you don't know, it is a violation of Federal law for a contractor assigned to a government project to employ workers who do not have a legal right to work. So, how on earth would employees have grounds for a lawsuit if a private citizen demands the same?
Employment discrimination occurs every day of the week. In fact, some candidates' resumes are denied consideration simply due to their names, irrespective of qualifications. A name such as Shaquita comes to mind. Others are denied employment due to their age, despite laws prohibiting such practices. Sadly, these are standard operating procedures for some employers, because it is extremely difficult to prove. But, there's a huge difference between due diligence and discrimination.
Again you invent a strawman that you can answer rather than the one discussed.
It is not the illegals who would sue. It is the legals. And they would sue the contractor and the client.
Of course discrimination is rampant...then why would you expect to get a straight answer from the contractor?
Why don't you read the thread before you respond? It is given that you can demand that all workers on your project be legal. No one said otherwise.
You can't deal with the real issue...which was demanding documents for the non English speakers...so you make up a straw man you can deal with.
If a homeowner ONLY wants English-speakers to work on a project, it would still not violate the law. That would be the homeowners' prerogative. You really need to research employment laws to understand the difference between a bona fide employer, bound by labor laws, and a homeowner hiring a contractor. BIG difference.
Again, the law requires employers to hire only those with a legal right to work in this country. I have already explained the simple procedure to respond to the homeowners' request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertylover7
And while the contractor is lying to the government he would never lie to a client would he?
Obviously, you missed this. . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Of course an unscrupulous contractor will lie about their status, but the homeowner certainly has the right to inquire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertylover7
Iam not sure what requirements are for a contractor to check the criminal records of his employees. I suspect he can answer "no felons to the best of my knowledge".
There's a little thing called "negligent hiring." You may want to Google it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertylover7
Again you invent a strawman that you can answer rather than the one discussed.
It is not the illegals who would sue. It is the legals. And they would sue the contractor and the client.
Of course discrimination is rampant...then why would you expect to get a straight answer from the contractor?
No strawman, just facts. Please explain how a legal worker would have grounds to sue, when the legal worker would not even be privy to the discussion or agreement between the contractor and the homeowner. Employees are not generally included in contract negotiations. Some are selected for projects, while others are not. Would a convicted felon employed by the contractor have grounds to sue me because I told the contractor not to send any with criminal backgrounds to my home? Of course not! Again, that is my right.
If a homeowner ONLY wants English-speakers to work on a project, it would still not violate the law. That would be the homeowners' prerogative. You really need to research employment laws to understand the difference between a bona fide employer, bound by labor laws, and a homeowner hiring a contractor. BIG difference.
Again you make up a strawman that would work. That was not the proposition.
Quote:
Again, the law requires employers to hire only those with a legal right to work in this country. I have already explained the simple procedure to respond to the homeowners' request.
And again no one said otherwise. So really not relevant.
Quote:
There's a little thing called "negligent hiring." You may want to Google it.
Not applicable. Does not have obvious contact with the public and is not law in around half the states.
Quote:
No strawman, just facts. Please explain how a legal worker would have grounds to sue, when the legal worker would not even be privy to the discussion or agreement between the contractor and the homeowner. Employees are not generally included in contract negotiations. Some are selected for projects, while others are not. Would a convicted felon employed by the contractor have grounds to sue me because I told the contractor not to send any with criminal backgrounds to my home? Of course not! Again, that is my right.
I am not aware that criminal felons are a protected class. Ethnic minorities are. And if a set of legal Spanish speakers got left out of a big job...here comes the suit.
I am skeptical that one could defend an English only requirement unless you could get an expert opinion that it was a bonafide job requirement.
Access to the contract is easy. It is called disclosure.
Well u all know most of you in 2010 we had a huge remodeling and addition going on.
Yes the contractor bid low, but not really low compared to what he offered me in my contract. We added a huge amount with another full 3 car garage with storage, shelves galore,. HE PUT higher grade down for most everything, he did not me, but i was not going to refuse, knowing my taste and likes.
With these guys, i knew because these guys could not speak english well at all, one guy even told me he was illegal, a stupid thing to do. And i caught the idiot paying the illegals under the table, right in my huge backyard. I went to every window of my house and snapped pictures with my cell phone.
These guys could not understand what in the hell they were suppose to do, and their work, a kid could have done better, i was throwing fits. They had to go over and over the work, because they sucked at what they did, how the contractor feels he is saving money with these illegals, who cannot do the work properly, and costing them more money, is just stupid. Give the work to Americans, as my second crew was who can follow instructions.
Then the next day when he showed up, i told him what i did, and that i was making a phone call.
Next day, i had an all American crew working for me, and yes i checked out their licenses and identification.
I did not like him after that, and him being Italian like myself, was not a good situation, and he knew it. We know so much about additions and adding on and remodeling, that he didd not count on.
We have done it all, from additions, to roofing, to putting in windows, flooring painting murals, electrical, plumbing, u name it hubby does it. Well he use to before getting sick.
I did check out references, and with the BBB, but once you hire the contractor, your not sure what your getting, until your into the project. At the end the ass---- walked and we were glad, we finished the rest of what had to be done, and he was gone. but not before my Son made him pay us $4700 for the work he did not complete. Infact the night he walked, i did not thank him, or say one word to him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
