The evidence indicates tey ignored discrepancies with the SS#.
No, the record does not indicate that. As already pointed out to you (why do you stubbornly refuse to listen to what you've been told), the letter (a link to it was provided to you) gave several possible reasons for whatever was preventing Social Security from being able to, as the letter stated, "put these earnings on the employee's Social Security record". Here the reasons the letter stated:
- Record transcription or typographical errors
- Incomplete or blank name reported
- Incomplete or blank SSN reported
- Name changes
It doesn't say the SSN might be wrong … just incomplete or blank. And gives 3 other reasons that have nothing to do with the SSN. In fact, the letter states immediately below that list of reasons that "This letter does
not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee's name or SSN." And then it warns the employer not to take any adverse action against the employee and that doing so "may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences". And then the letter goes even further and says "this letter makes
no statement about your employee's immigration status." It seems to be going out of it's way to say the SSN and employees legal status is probably fine.
Then below that it requests information. Whitman's husband may have filled out the form. It requires no signature but the ink and block lettering in the answers might match the note Allred says Mr Whitman scribbled at the bottom of the form saying "Nicky Please check this Thanks". Nicky being the housekeeper.
And since the maid apparently is the one who had this letter in her possession, Mr Whitman obviously followed up that scribble by giving the letter and form to her to check (i.e., take care of). And that appears to have been a permissable action. The instructions on the form only says to "ask the employee to give you the name and Social Security number exactly as it appears on the employee's Social Security card. It even says that "while the employee must furnish the SSN to you,
the employee is not required to show you the Social Security card." And it says that if the employee's SS card does not show the correct name or SSN,
"have the employee contact any Social Security office." So even if there was a problem, the instructions were to let the employee "check" it. It clearly doesn't require that the form be sent back by the employer or the employer contact the office. The Whitman did absolutely nothing wrong.
And mind you, this was a long term employee. They'd seen her driver's license and SS card, which, by the way, look quite legal. She'd been employed through an agency … not off the street or by word of mouth … so they reasonably had the expectation that she was legal. They clearly had concerns about hiring someone who was illegal. In fact, why would they pay $23/hour for someone they knew was illegal (you claim), when they could go out and hire one for $10/hour? If you want to know what I think, I think you are just on a witch hunt for ANY excuse to hurt Whitman's campaign and are not interested in the facts, Wildcat.
Heh, I bet that's $15/hr to the employment agency, and $8/hr to the maid.
Maybe, maybe not. You are again
just speculating. Most agencies like this take 30-50% off the top. Which means she probably was making more than the $8 you claim. And note that in addition to the $23/hour, the Whitman's also paid all payroll taxes including the maid's portion.
Here's a website that indicates the hourly wages for maids and housekeepers by various employers and industries.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Maid_or_Housekeeping_Cleaner/Hourly_Rate
Looks to me like Whitman's maid was probably making fair wages. And if the amount of wages are YOUR indication of people using illegals and taken advantage of them, then ALL those employers and job categories should have received your ire by now. Have they?
