Undocumented Workers and the Law of Worker’s CompensationEssay title: Undocumented Workers and the Law of Worker’s CompensationImmigration Law SeminarFinal Paper AssignmentJada BrisentineNovember 30, 2006Undocumented Workers and the Law of Worker’s CompensationUnited States citizens enjoy an abundance of rights under the American system of labor laws. Such rights include a minimum wage, unemployment, sick leave, worker’s compensation, often they include medical insurance and paid vacation. The working American citizen has little to fear from an employer because should an employer violate a worker’s rights, an American citizen can seek a remedy in a court of law. This system ensures that as a citizen of the United States, each of us has a right to work under better conditions to provide for our families with the security that should we become sick or injured, the employer will still provide us with the means to survive until such time as we might be able to return to work.
UAW: UAW (United States Civil Service)
UAW’s UAW is a volunteer, self-described nonpartisan legal research organization working to preserve the dignity, the rule of law, dignity of the labor force, and equity in all labor relations.
As a network of 21 federal civil government offices, our mission is to build an effective model for all workers at all stages of their careers, protecting rights, and ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at the fullness of their opportunities for employment, through equal opportunities, promotion, and full employment. We believe that our organization is a leading advocate for the rights of the working American public and to all public policy. For more information on UAW, please visit, www.usaw.org
UAW’s President, John V. Bowers, is a lawyer and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. To read and view our full coverage of each of our legal services, here.
The American Bar Association defines American legal services in terms of “law” or “applicable law.”
Under a federal law written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the United States was required to provide a free national health insurance program for the majority of its citizens regardless of the state’s constitutional constraints–the states having to provide them with state-funded health insurance. According to the Congressional Research Service, states of their own choosing, as well as the states themselves, provided health insurance for only a fraction of the populations the court recognized to be eligible during the Civil War. As the Supreme Court recognized in McCulloch v. Button, 41 U. S. 471 (1981), “The American people are not allowed to make the decision in their own interests as to what policies to adopt, when, and for what reasons”; and as the federal government does not have the same authority with respect to citizens and localities, the federal legislature has concluded a policy of “prohibiting all state action until a constitutional provision is passed by which such action is deemed to succeed and without prejudice to the rights of citizens of all states.” 1 St. Louis Free Press, November 15, 2013.
“In this Court’s case, the case of one plaintiff is the same case of the other. The plaintiff was born in Kansas City, Missouri, and resided at this place for some time. He chose to work in the United States while living in Colorado for two years. He died on 30 May of 2000 at age 90. During his last days in the American workforce, he made several phone calls to an elderly individual. The individual told him that he had just been discharged from a military base, and that while he still had work, he wanted to return to the U.S., and that because he worked too many hours, he would have to work extra hours, due to his health care provider’s health insurance. He said he would stay in the United States and work for two years, and he wanted to return to the United States and work until his conditions were fulfilled. The individual told him that he had already lived in the United States for two years at this point. A few days later, a telephone call coming from that individual informed him that his last day on which he worked was at midnight. With the exception of the last phone call, he never received a request for his leave of absence. The individual had previously worked seven to eight hours a day in the United States, the last for seven or eight months at this point. He believed that he was no longer entitled to any form of coverage as a result of this incident. The individual asked the following: The court could not refuse to entertain the individual’s request so long as he continued to work. He thought he should have the benefit of his employer’s coverage. The court agreed, finding that his claim of deprivation of benefits was an “incomplete
UAW: UAW (United States Civil Service)
UAW’s UAW is a volunteer, self-described nonpartisan legal research organization working to preserve the dignity, the rule of law, dignity of the labor force, and equity in all labor relations.
As a network of 21 federal civil government offices, our mission is to build an effective model for all workers at all stages of their careers, protecting rights, and ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at the fullness of their opportunities for employment, through equal opportunities, promotion, and full employment. We believe that our organization is a leading advocate for the rights of the working American public and to all public policy. For more information on UAW, please visit, www.usaw.org
UAW’s President, John V. Bowers, is a lawyer and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. To read and view our full coverage of each of our legal services, here.
The American Bar Association defines American legal services in terms of “law” or “applicable law.”
Under a federal law written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the United States was required to provide a free national health insurance program for the majority of its citizens regardless of the state’s constitutional constraints–the states having to provide them with state-funded health insurance. According to the Congressional Research Service, states of their own choosing, as well as the states themselves, provided health insurance for only a fraction of the populations the court recognized to be eligible during the Civil War. As the Supreme Court recognized in McCulloch v. Button, 41 U. S. 471 (1981), “The American people are not allowed to make the decision in their own interests as to what policies to adopt, when, and for what reasons”; and as the federal government does not have the same authority with respect to citizens and localities, the federal legislature has concluded a policy of “prohibiting all state action until a constitutional provision is passed by which such action is deemed to succeed and without prejudice to the rights of citizens of all states.” 1 St. Louis Free Press, November 15, 2013.
“In this Court’s case, the case of one plaintiff is the same case of the other. The plaintiff was born in Kansas City, Missouri, and resided at this place for some time. He chose to work in the United States while living in Colorado for two years. He died on 30 May of 2000 at age 90. During his last days in the American workforce, he made several phone calls to an elderly individual. The individual told him that he had just been discharged from a military base, and that while he still had work, he wanted to return to the U.S., and that because he worked too many hours, he would have to work extra hours, due to his health care provider’s health insurance. He said he would stay in the United States and work for two years, and he wanted to return to the United States and work until his conditions were fulfilled. The individual told him that he had already lived in the United States for two years at this point. A few days later, a telephone call coming from that individual informed him that his last day on which he worked was at midnight. With the exception of the last phone call, he never received a request for his leave of absence. The individual had previously worked seven to eight hours a day in the United States, the last for seven or eight months at this point. He believed that he was no longer entitled to any form of coverage as a result of this incident. The individual asked the following: The court could not refuse to entertain the individual’s request so long as he continued to work. He thought he should have the benefit of his employer’s coverage. The court agreed, finding that his claim of deprivation of benefits was an “incomplete
It is an unfortunate truth, however; that not all persons who live and work in the United States are entitled to these labor rights. Undocumented workers or illegal aliens often work long shifts with no overtime, no minimum wage, and at times with out even pay. If they choose to keep their jobs or avoid deportation they are forced to work under harsh or unsantitary conditions. If they become ill, they are expected to continue working or are quickly replaced with some one who will continue to work in their stead. If they are injured, not only do they not have medical insurance because of their status as illegal aliens, in many states, the employer is not required to compensate them for their injuries. In short, the exploitation of illegal workers is a prominate problem in the United States, and a problem that is tragic with out a current solution.
The scope of this discussion will focus primarily on the law of worker’s compensation. It will seek to outline the overall purpose of this body of law; which jurisdictions and instances worker’s compensation does and does not apply to undocumented workers; and the rationale for its application as provided by relevant case law. Ultimatly, this discussion will invite the policy perspective that workers compensation is not only bennificial to the illegal worker and the more humane option, but is also the better option to help curtail illegal hiring practices by imposing additional cost on employers and therefore a disincentive for employers to hire illegal workers.
Worker’s Compensation Law In Brief:“Worker’s compensation is a non-fault mechanism for providing for cash-wage benefits and medical care to victims of work-connected injuries, and for placing the cost of these injuries ultimately on the consumer, through the medium of insurance, whose premiums are passed on the cost of the product”
The basic system of worker’s compensation is that an employer is required to purchase worker’s compensation insurance for employees. The cost of those preminums will generally be covered in the price of the goods that the employer sales or manufactors. In the event that an employee is injured, s/he is entitled to benefits to cover, loss of wages, medical expenses ect. An employer that provides worker’s compensation can not be sued for work related injuries. Statutes that address worker’s compensation vary greatly from state to state but the universal concepts are as follows:
An employee is automaticly entitled to benefits when s/he suffers a personal injury arising out of and in the scope of employement.Negligence and fault are largely immaterial as it would be in a tort claim. For example if the employer is partially negligent or if the employee is negligent it doesn’t matter the employee is still entitled to benefits.
Coverage is limited to employees (can be problematic for our purposes)Benefits include one third or one half wage loss; medical expenses including rehabilitation; in the case of death it can include compensation for dependants. Maximum amounts are regulated under the statute.
The employee covered under these benefits cannot sue the employerThe employee can sue third parties, however the employer can recover benefits from those settlementsThis system is regulated by agency so procedure tends to be relaxed in order ensure payment.The employer is required to carry worker’s compensation insurance usually through private insurance to secure its liability.It is important to note here that worker’s compensation