Access Exclusive, Trusted HR News & Resources >>> New Professional Members Save $20 Today
We asked HR professionals to tell us about their time in HR. Here are their stories.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Set yourself up for success with virtual SHRM-CP/SHRM-SCP Certification Prep Seminars.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Legislation sets up conflict between federal, state authorities, with employers caught in the middle
California employers may soon be pitted against federal immigration agencies seeking to conduct worksite enforcement actions now that the state Assembly has passed the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450).
The legislation prohibits employers from allowing federal agents access to their workplaces without a warrant, and to employee records without a subpoena.
In addition to limiting California businesses from voluntarily complying with federal immigration authorities, the bill would impose new notice requirements regarding I-9 audits, enact new statutory penalties and provide greater worksite access to the state labor commissioner's office.
[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing the Hiring Process in California]
"California has already seen a jump in immigration enforcement raids, and it is widely anticipated that worksite raids are next," said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, the chief sponsor of the bill. "[President Donald] Trump's threats of massive deportations are spreading fear among California workers, families and employers. I'm proud to author this legislation which … offer[s] new legal protections for individuals in our workplaces. At the same time, AB 450 offers employers clarity about what to do when ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents target their places of business with indiscriminate raids."
The bill represents another front in the ongoing tension between California and the federal government on immigration, said Michael Kalt, an attorney at Wilson Turner Kosmo in San Diego, and the government affairs director for the California State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management. "While it is hardly unusual for California and the federal government to enact slightly differing versions of laws given their differences in terms of which party is in control and the constituents they reflect, it does appear unique to the extent that the two sides seem to be attempting to create conflict with" each other, he said.
The California Labor Federation and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) California are among the bill's supporters that claim immigration enforcement actions at workplaces often violate workers' rights.
"Past raids occurred under the auspices of narrow individual arrest warrants that ICE used to question and detain every single worker at a worksite, including U.S. citizens and workers lawfully present, violating their basic constitutional rights," according to Chiu's office.
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) and a multitude of employer associations oppose the legislation, saying that the costs to employers will be significant, including penalties levied on employers that choose to cooperate with federal authorities.
"An employer that is in full compliance with federal immigration laws and chooses to minimize disruption of business operations by federal officials by exercising their right to cooperate with federal enforcement officials will be penalized by the provisions of AB 450 with the imposition of steep penalties—not less than $2,000 and up to $10,000 for each violation," said Marti Fisher, a policy advocate for the CalChamber based in Sacramento.
"The newly added sections impose penalties that are far above the $1,000 [that] statutory law already permits," added Ann Cun, founder and managing attorney of Accel Visa Attorneys, an immigration law firm in San Leandro, Calif. "If the heart of the bill was to deter employers from acting improperly, the bill does nothing to help educate employers. Rather, it serves only to penalize and punish employers."
Provisions of AB 450 include:
The bill was sent to the Senate May 31 for consideration. Kalt said he wouldn't be surprised to see Gov. Jerry Brown sign it—even though there will likely be legal challenges arguing that the proposed legislation is pre-empted by federal law.
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Apply for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP Exams
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies