HB15-38/ PL15-108 Labor Reform: March 2008

Monday, March 24, 2008

HUH?

Marianas Variety
http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=8771&format=html
Letter to the Editor: Huh?

I HAVE been following the wage hike debate. I must say that I am in agreement with the need to increase the minimum wage in the CNMI, but not for the reasons so stated by Jerry Custodio in his recent letter to the editor.

Mr. Custodio states that there is a “struggle for justice” and the guest workers have “long been suffering from a $3.55 minimum wage.” I don’t get it. Assuming that he comes from the Philippines, I wonder if he would rather work for under a buck an hour and not have any benefits, short of maybe a meal and transportation allowance — that is if he is lucky enough to land a job there. And if he gets sick or injured, he’s on his own. I wonder if Mr. Custodio has written any letters to his own president and Congress to complain about the injustice in the Philippines and abuse of workers.

I would say that for an average worker from China or the Philippines, Saipan is a workers paradise. For the most part, free housing, free transportation, free uniforms, free medical, free trip back and forth home, Free food sometimes, and $3.55 an hour to boot. And don’t forget the free food stamps that you get for your babies that are born in the CNMI. Please, don’t complain to me about American injustice, because I don’t see it.

I believe that the minimum wage should increase for the benefit of American citizens. At the very least, American’s should be paid equity to compensate for the “benefits” paid already to non-Americans on top of their salary. As wages increase, more and more qualified American’s will be willing to fill the jobs.

So Mr. Custodio, don’t complain to me about America or the CNMI being unjust to you because we only pay $3.55 an hour to you. I doubt that you speak for all non-resident workers as your letter states. If you worked for me, and you were worthy, you would be earning $6 or $7 or more, if I couldn’t fill the position with an American.

Just because you have given up hope in your own country, you should be grateful that my country gave you a job and opportunity. And if there is more “justice” for you somewhere else, why in the world are you still here? It seem like the popular thing these days is for the world to bash America. I for one am getting damned tired of it. Talk to me again on the day that poor people in the Philippines can get food stamps from their own government.

PAUL TROMBETTA

Questions

HERE are a few questions that I would like to ask the federal government and the guest workers who really want fairness and justice, especially the guest workers who have been in the CNMI for five years or more and would get a status enjoyed by FAS citizens.

Questions to guest workers:
1. Have you paid any form of federal taxes?

2. What would the impact be on Medicare and Social Security which I have paid to ever since I was 13?

3. What would the impact be on other federal taxpayer programs like Medicaid, HUD housing, food stamps, etc.?

4. Isn’t it that what you really want is U.S. CITIZENSHIP?

5. Where did most of your earnings go?
To the federal government:

1. Why would you think that giving guest workers FAS status a reasonable idea?

2. What would the impact be on Medicare and Social Security since they have no prior contributions to any form of federal taxes?

3. What would the impact be on other programs like Medicaid, HUD housing, and food stamps, etc.?

4. Do you all know that an average local worker that earns $3.05 in minimum wage salary takes home less than a guest worker who gets housing and other benefits?

5. Will the federal government pay for the guest workers’ impact like the FAS Compact- Impact?

So both parties — can you tell me where is the fairness and justice here? It’s more like a slap to the faces of locals. U.S. citizenship is what you really want so stop all the pretense of human rights abuse blahblahblah, fairness and justice blahblahblah, and remember your employment there is your choice. Weren’t you all supposed to work and leave and not migrate?

PRINCE RENGIIL
Key West, Florida

QUIZ ON THE MARCH TO FEDERALIZATION

01. Who had Cohen's job in Washington in the late 1990's?
02. When was local legislation introduced to put a cap on guest workers entering CNMI?
03. Who was Speaker and Senate President during that period?
04. Who was working in the Senate as a legal Council during passage of this and other labor reform acts?
05. Who established the Omnibudsman's office in CNMI?
06. Who worked at the DOI and met and arranged meetings in 1998 between Plaintiffs in Class Action and lawyers (Milberg&Weiss) that sued the Garment Industry in 1999?
07. Who did North work for at DOI?
08. Why was Alan Staymen removed from his position at DOI?
09. Was Alan Staymen indicted for his criminal activities while Under-Secretary of Insular Territories at DOI?
10. Who hired Pam Brown as Omnibudsman?
11. When Pam Brown resigned from Omnibudsman position, whom did she recommend and assist in being hired?
12. When Pam Brown became Omnibudsman, how many guest worker case were filed with the EEOC?
13. If employee files and EEOC complaint, does that worker obtain a TWA and allows them to stay on island?
14. When Pam Brown resigned from Omnibudsman office, did she work for Milbery&Weiss on the Class Action case against the garment industry?
15. Pam Brown quit an $85,000 year job with Federal Government, how much did the Class Action attorney’s pay Pam Brown for six months of consulting work to help Milbery & Weiss?
16. Was a conflict of interest brought up in court by Defendants that Brown took case files from EEOC and opened those filing with Class Action Attorney’s and was paid to do so?
17. Did Judge Munson rule that if a conflict were created in Brown’s actions, that it should be the EEOC and Justice Department that should bring the matter up before the Court?
18. Why didn’t EEOC investigate the actions of Brown in taking case file to Milberg &Weiss?

Congresswoman Donna Christensen Statement

Congresswoman Donna Christensen Statement "The residents of our insular areas are stewards of some of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas under the U.S. flag. It is so important that we work diligently to preserve and enhance this inheritance." Ron de Lugo, Former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs The United States presently maintains sovereignty over five inhabited territories that vary in population, land mass, economic power, and political development. Congresswoman Donna M. Christensen (D-VI) is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, which was re-established in the 110th Congress and has the primary jurisdiction to set federal policy for each of these territories. Article IV, Section 3, of the United States Constitution, known as the Territorial Clause, provides Congress with power over the territories. The Insular areas of the U.S. include the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The U.S. was ceded three of the five territories at the end of the Spanish-American War and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, originally, as a United Nations Trust Territory at the culmination of World War II. The remaining territories were either acquired by the U.S. through a Deed of Cession, as was American Samoa in 1900, or through outright purchase, when U.S. Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark in 1917. In addition, the Committee oversees matters regarding the Compact relationship between the U.S. and the 'Freely Associated States' of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under Congress' authority, these territories have been able to exercise limited self government. Like the States, each territory elects its own head-of-state (governor) and legislators who serve in either a unicameral or a bicameral legislative body. In general, federal law applies to all the territories, and local legislative bodies are responsible for laws that have local application. Except for the CNMI, Congress has authorized elected representation from each territory in the U.S. House of Representatives - providing representatives the opportunity to participate in shaping the federal policy that impacts their home territories. Today, after more than a century under the American flag and as a part of the American family, U.S. territories continue to struggle with a multitude of issues. From working to protect their indigenous cultures and languages, to tackling federal policies that impact their economic, social, and political development - it is clear that these regions are challenged with a multitude of issues that inhibit their full political, economic, and cultural development. Further, for colonized cultures there is a natural aspiration for political advancement through self-determination. The Committee strives to consider issues of self-determination that are constitutionally sound, and provide the territories with a clear direction for achieving political status consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The territories already contribute economically, socially, and militarily to the American fabric - and it is only fitting that we work to help meet the challenges they face and assist in their continued well-being. They are, after all, our fellow American citizens.

PROBLEM IN PALAU with U.S. State Department (101507 mv)

Palau pushes for greater US engagement in Pacific By Giff Johnson For Variety MAJURO — As Asian, Australian and European Union influence grows in the Pacific, the United States appears to be taking a back seat in affairs of the region, said the president of Palau. “I feel the U.S. can do more for its friends in the Pacific — not just the three Freely Associated States (Palau, Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia),” Palau President Tommy Remengesau Jr. said here, Thursday, on the eve of the Taiwan Pacific Allies Summit. The 16 independent nations in the region “are not asking for much,” he said. “They have small, simple problems. It’s within the U.S. capability to pay more attention to the issues and be more of a partner with the Pacific.” With the exception of the massive military buildup in progress in the U.S. territory of Guam, Remengesau doesn’t see the level of engagement that he believes would be in the interests of both the U.S. and the islands. “It’s a frustrating situation,” he said. “We don’t get the attention that friends should receive from each other. Maybe it’s because we’re not a problem.” Palau is quickly approaching the final stages of a 15-year Compact of Free Association with Washington that provides large scale U.S. funding through 2009. But the U.S. State Department bluntly announced recently that the American government has no plans to offer Palau any more aid when the current funding pact expires. Remengesau called that “a disturbing statement.” He said relations between the U.S. and Palau under the Compact “can be summed up in one word: success.” “We’ve come a long way since the Trust Territory days,” he added. “But as in any marriage, there’s always room to improve.” But, he added, “I don’t want our relationship to take a backwards step.” He called the U.S.-Palau relationship a close big brother, small brother tie. In terms of future U.S. aid to Palau, Remengesau said that “all along we’ve felt that we (U.S. and Palau) would come to the table as good friends rather than adversaries” to address the next phase of the relationship. The State Department position casts doubt on that expectation, putting U.S. plans for a clear aid exit strategy on the table. Earlier this month, U.S. and Palau officials officially opened a U.S.-funded 53-mile long road that took about five years and more than $100 million to build. “We don’t expect the U.S. to do everything Palau asks,” Remengesau said. “But there are areas that we continue to need help in. We’ve done a lot but we are nowhere near the economic self-sufficiency we need to achieve.” Palau was a United Nations Trust Territory under the U.S. from shortly after World War II until it became an independent nation, though still closely associated with the U.S., in 1994. While the country has established a significant tourism industry focused on scuba diving in its pristine waters, Palau remains dependent on aid from Washington. Remengesau said he expects to name a Compact negotiation team before the end of 2007 to fast-track talks with Washington, with the goal of completing discussions with the U.S. during 2008 — all of which depends on the State Department playing ball. U.S. congressional leaders are supportive of renegotiating the Compact and have issued a letter to the State Department encouraging the U.S. review process to begin as soon as possible, Remengesau said. “They don’t want to be faced with last minute legislation,” he said. Alluding to Palau’s economic strength relative to its more dependent Compact neighbors Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia, Remengesau said this should not be reason for the U.S. to completely pull the plug on financially assisting a nation that has been its ward and ally for more than 60 years. “One point I’ve made to the United States is that I hope Palau does not get penalized for being a success story,” he said.

Signing of HB 15-38 into law - PL 15-108

Links

While law In Process

Guest Workers

Dekada Movement counsel Stephen Woodruff

BENEDETTO

TINA SABLAN & Propts movement

Indigenous Community Opinion

TAOTAO TANO OPINION

TAOTAO TANO Follow up

Monday, March 24, 2008

HUH?

EXTENDED LINKS

About Me

Blog Archive

Questions

QUIZ ON THE MARCH TO FEDERALIZATION

Text-Ads

Feeds

Congresswoman Donna Christensen Statement

PROBLEM IN PALAU with U.S. State Department (101507 mv)