New Homeland Regulation Could Cost Workers Jobs
Federal regulations might rank up there with soaring energy costs as putting a lot of inflationary pressure on United States businesses.
A case in point in Texas is the "no-match" regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The regulation originally was to take effect last September, but U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked implementation finding that "the government's proposal to disseminate 'no-match' letters affecting more than 8 million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers ..."
Judge Breyer also found, "If allowed to proceed, the mailing of no-match letters, accompanied by DHS' guidance letters, would result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."
DHS delayed implementation and issued a rewritten regulation on March 26. But critics contend the rewrite has changed little and the end result remains the same.
"What would you call a federal regulation that gives employers no choice but to fire workers if they are unable to resolve discrepancies over records kept by the Social Security Administration and the Social Security number submitted by an employee?" asked Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business.
"The government calls it a 'No-Match' regulation," he added. "But many Texas employers call it just plain extreme."
By authorizing the regulation, the DHS presumes employers are criminals unless they can demonstrate otherwise, Hammond said. If employers cannot resolve a name or number discrepancy involving an employee in 93 days, they must terminate workers or face civil and criminal penalties for employing undocumented workers.
"Employers will spend billions of dollars during the coming years to interpret and comply with this new and draconian regulation," Hammond declared. "In Texas, if you examine the previous years' employment numbers and the SSA's own estimates on faulty Social Security numbers, employers could be forced to seek protection from prosecution by terminating up to 750,000 workers."
Discrepancies between workers' names and Social Security numbers often result from clerical errors or name changes due to marriage or divorce, it is pointed out.
These types of errors have nothing to do with immigration or work authorization and an employer cannot assume that receipt of a "no-match" letter implies anything about the employee's legal status, Hammond stressed.
The figures bear out that statement. Of the estimated 17.8 million errors in SSA's database, 12.7 million (or more than 70 percent) pertain to native-born U.S. citizens.
In addition, the new regulation presents employers with a dilemma of threatened prosecution by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement versus lawsuits for potential violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects all workers regardless of immigration status from discrimination in employment.
The Bush administration claims the "no-match" regulation will discourage future illegal immigration.
Hammond contends the reality is it will jeopardize the employment of about 10 percent of the legal workforce in the United States.
"Rather than treating employers as adversaries in the immigration debate," Hammond suggested, "the administration should view employers as partners in economic growth and job creation. They should suspend the "no-match" effort until alternative, more accurate, databases are in place and employers have an efficient way to correct data errors and obtain status confirmation."
Discouraging illegal immigration is a worthwhile ambition, and one many citizens strongly support. But a regulation that threatens the economic viability of businesses and the jobs of many legitimate workers fits the "extreme" designation.
A quick "stop" should be put on "no-match" by the administration or Congress with an eye to replacing it with a more effective and efficient solution.
