Salinas producers turn out for Social Security mismatch forum
Salinas producers turn out for Social Security mismatch forum
SALINAS, CA -- Jim Bogart of the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California and two attorneys closely connected with agriculture held a forum Aug. 20 for area grower-shippers on the Social Security mismatch rule.
About 100 people attended the forum, which was held at the Richard Nutter Ag Conference Center.
Joining Mr. Bogart in making presentations were Terry O'Connor, a labor and employment attorney who specializes in agriculture, and Blanca Zarazua, an attorney who represents the Farm Labor Contractors Alliance and is counsel for Mexico in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.
Based on audience questions and comments, the attendees have a good understanding of the importance -- if not all the particulars -- of the mismatch rule regulation that goes into effect Sept. 14, Mr. Bogart said.
The Social Security Administration held off implementing the rule through the spring and summer, which has allowed companies and employees a little time to brace for what is expected to be an arduous and expensive undertaking.
Starting in mid-September, the Social Security Administration plans to begin sending out 15,000 letters a week under the so-called "no-match" regulation. If SSA sends "a no-match" letter claiming that one or more employees' identity information is inaccurate, the employer has 90 days from receipt of the letter to rectify the situation or it may be found liable. An escalating fine schedule can make noncompliance very costly for the employer.
The real misfortune for the fresh produce industry is that Congress "has failed to provide access to a legal workforce," Mr. Bogart said, adding that implementation of the mismatch rule is a "Hobson's choice" that leaves the industry taking what is offered - which is no choice at all.
Mr. O'Connor called the step another layer of recordkeeping and documenting beyond what he has advised companies to do in the past. "This is a more formal procedure," Mr. O'Connor said. "It's going to be a pain to do it."
Mr. O'Connor said employers at the Aug. 20 forum told him that the Employment Development Department, one of four departments under the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, is involved in sending out "no-match" letters. Some agriculture laborers who are authorized to work collect unemployment under a different name, Mr. O'Connor said.
When complications arise in the 90-day window to prove a worker's identity, the Department of Homeland Security's safe-harbor procedures allow employers to file an I-9 toward redocumenting a worker. The I-9 establishes the worker's right to work in the United States and establishes his or her identity. The I-9 filing involves use of identification documentation other than the Social Security card, for instance, that brought about the "no-match" determination. A birth certificate is one viable form.
Some mismatches are the result of honest mistakes, such as confusion caused by the cultural usage of reversing a person's first and last name, Mr. O'Connor said.
The implementation of the mismatch rule puts employers in a potentially precarious position. Employers aren't allowed to knowingly employ someone whose documentation they suspect is false, yet they can't reject documents without facing the risk of being accused of discrimination, Mr. O'Connor said.
"It's more likely the worker would just leave" rather than raise a fuss, Mr. O'Connor said. When the Immigration & Naturalization Service used to raid fields, even the legal workers feared being herded onto a bus and dumped just south of the border in Tijuana, he said.
The desert areas of California and Arizona have their own set of problems under the newly imposed regulations. The vast majority of the field workers in the desert are legal, in part because of the ever-present threat of border patrol scrutiny, Mr. O'Connor said.
But as a result of labor shortages, employers have taken to offering cash bonuses and other incentives to attract laborers to the fields. If an employer needs 150 laborers to harvest a crop in a week, that employer may have to hire twice that many because of the nature of day labor and workers looking for the best deal.
Ms. Zarazua, who represents the 50 or so members of the Farm Labor Contractors Alliance, said that there is talk of holding a similar forum on the mismatch rule elsewhere in California, such as in Santa Maria and the San Joaquin Valley. However, 60-70 percent of the farm labor contractors in the alliance are based in the general Salinas Valley area, she said.
Ms. Zarazua told employers at the Salinas forum that if they are nervous about the new regulations, their employees "are nervous times 10."
About 100 people attended the forum, which was held at the Richard Nutter Ag Conference Center.
Joining Mr. Bogart in making presentations were Terry O'Connor, a labor and employment attorney who specializes in agriculture, and Blanca Zarazua, an attorney who represents the Farm Labor Contractors Alliance and is counsel for Mexico in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.
Based on audience questions and comments, the attendees have a good understanding of the importance -- if not all the particulars -- of the mismatch rule regulation that goes into effect Sept. 14, Mr. Bogart said.
The Social Security Administration held off implementing the rule through the spring and summer, which has allowed companies and employees a little time to brace for what is expected to be an arduous and expensive undertaking.
Starting in mid-September, the Social Security Administration plans to begin sending out 15,000 letters a week under the so-called "no-match" regulation. If SSA sends "a no-match" letter claiming that one or more employees' identity information is inaccurate, the employer has 90 days from receipt of the letter to rectify the situation or it may be found liable. An escalating fine schedule can make noncompliance very costly for the employer.
The real misfortune for the fresh produce industry is that Congress "has failed to provide access to a legal workforce," Mr. Bogart said, adding that implementation of the mismatch rule is a "Hobson's choice" that leaves the industry taking what is offered - which is no choice at all.
Mr. O'Connor called the step another layer of recordkeeping and documenting beyond what he has advised companies to do in the past. "This is a more formal procedure," Mr. O'Connor said. "It's going to be a pain to do it."
Mr. O'Connor said employers at the Aug. 20 forum told him that the Employment Development Department, one of four departments under the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, is involved in sending out "no-match" letters. Some agriculture laborers who are authorized to work collect unemployment under a different name, Mr. O'Connor said.
When complications arise in the 90-day window to prove a worker's identity, the Department of Homeland Security's safe-harbor procedures allow employers to file an I-9 toward redocumenting a worker. The I-9 establishes the worker's right to work in the United States and establishes his or her identity. The I-9 filing involves use of identification documentation other than the Social Security card, for instance, that brought about the "no-match" determination. A birth certificate is one viable form.
Some mismatches are the result of honest mistakes, such as confusion caused by the cultural usage of reversing a person's first and last name, Mr. O'Connor said.
The implementation of the mismatch rule puts employers in a potentially precarious position. Employers aren't allowed to knowingly employ someone whose documentation they suspect is false, yet they can't reject documents without facing the risk of being accused of discrimination, Mr. O'Connor said.
"It's more likely the worker would just leave" rather than raise a fuss, Mr. O'Connor said. When the Immigration & Naturalization Service used to raid fields, even the legal workers feared being herded onto a bus and dumped just south of the border in Tijuana, he said.
The desert areas of California and Arizona have their own set of problems under the newly imposed regulations. The vast majority of the field workers in the desert are legal, in part because of the ever-present threat of border patrol scrutiny, Mr. O'Connor said.
But as a result of labor shortages, employers have taken to offering cash bonuses and other incentives to attract laborers to the fields. If an employer needs 150 laborers to harvest a crop in a week, that employer may have to hire twice that many because of the nature of day labor and workers looking for the best deal.
Ms. Zarazua, who represents the 50 or so members of the Farm Labor Contractors Alliance, said that there is talk of holding a similar forum on the mismatch rule elsewhere in California, such as in Santa Maria and the San Joaquin Valley. However, 60-70 percent of the farm labor contractors in the alliance are based in the general Salinas Valley area, she said.
Ms. Zarazua told employers at the Salinas forum that if they are nervous about the new regulations, their employees "are nervous times 10."
