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.
why does she have to go, do you think she wrote this provision?...Congress did. If your are going to place blame...at least get the right group.
you have no idea who wrote that commentary? It isn't a law as far as I know. And if it is I think your precious party is in BIG trouble. Unless you want to see a blood bath in Nov you better home Congree isn't responsible for this.
you have no idea who wrote that commentary? It isn't a law as far as I know. And if it is I think your precious party is in BIG trouble. Unless you want to see a blood bath in Nov you better home Congree isn't responsible for this.
Nita
lets check facts...I wasnt commenting on who wrote commentary, thats useless.
why does she have to go, do you think she wrote this provision?...Congress did. If your are going to place blame...at least get the right group.
you have no idea who wrote that commentary? It isn't a law as far as I know. And if it is I think your precious party is in BIG trouble. Unless you want to see a blood bath in Nov you better home Congree isn't responsible for this.
Many employers have interpreted Hoffman to mean that undocumented workers are not entitled to back pay at all. Such is not the case. Hoffman, as well as a line of federal courts interpreting it holds that employees are entitled to back pay under the wage and hour laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, regardless of their immigration status for hours actually worked. Courts have reasoned that holding employers liable for failing to pay undocumented workers is even consistent with immigration policy. As one court put it: “If employers know they have to pay illegal aliens the same wages as legal workers, they are far less likely to hire an illegal worker and run the risk of subjecting themselves to sanctions” under federal immigration laws.
from...Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB on Immigrant Workers
and Recent Developments
[LEFT]
Quote:
On March 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB1
that has generated concern among immigrant workers, communities, and immigrant rights and labor
advocates. In Hoffman, the Supreme Court held that a worker who is undocumented could not recover the[/LEFT]
remedy of back pay under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
[LEFT]
lets check facts...I wasnt commenting on who wrote commentary, thats useless.
2, I never said law, I said provision.
3, Im not a democrat.
no but you did say not to get upset with her, it was congress' doing. So what were you saying? I don't believe I said it was law or you said it was, my comments were related to your saying it was Congress. You have no idea anymore than I have an idea. Regardless, the public service announcement, if you want to call it that, sucks!!!
Nita
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.
