The Pro-Illegal Immigration Lobby: Big Business & Small Business
Industry Fights Measure to Bar Contractors for Immigration Violations
We hear numerous Americans discussing illegal immigration as a major problem. We hear stories about "illegals" taking American jobs. We hear numerous complaints about the costs of coping with the problems these "illegal aliens" bring into our nation, especially crime, health care, "free" benefits, etc. But most of the statistics quoted by the hard core opponents of any type of reform to our immigration approach are off and distorted to such a degree that it appeals to the basest emotions we experience, but never reaches our reasoning abilities.
The most often misquoted and misrepresented statistic is the burden "illegals" place on our law enforcement and correctional processes. Even though the actual figures are not tracked by local, state or federal law enforcement or prosecution authorities, many of the anti-immigration reform folks continue to cite stats on the tremendous burden these folks are putting upon us.
Another set of stats used by those that oppose reform of our immigration policies is the burden placed upon our "welfare" systems. The argument is that these folks place a huge burden on our welfare programs. A recent statistic I heard on a news report on CNN cited that for every dollar contributed to our tax base by "illegals," two dollars are spent to support their welfare. Of course, there was no actual source cited by the proponents of such statistics. The actual basis of such analysis was not disclosed in the study cited (neither on the news report or in the actual study), and the validity of was taken at face value.
While I am certain that some "burden" is experienced upon our society by immigrants entering our nation, I am not certain that those entering our nation illegally place any more burden upon us than those that enter via legal processes. I say this because the vast number of those here on illegal terms do everything within their power to avoid any contact with officials and authorities that could call into question their immigration status. These folks know, or at least believe, that even a traffic ticket could result in referral to INS and ICE. So our "illegal alien" population is significantly underground, under counted, under represented and not accurately assessed by any legitimate study.
In many ways, these folks are in a similar situation as most homeless persons. We have a stereotype of what these folks represent, how they live, how many there are on our streets, and how much of a burden they place upon us. But as is the case with our homeless population, the reality is so significantly different that we cannot fathom the truth. But I have lived in homes where there have been members of the household that were here illegally, so I know some "truths" on these matters.
1. Our Perceptions About Illegal Aliens Are Whacked. While most people think of these folks as being a burden upon our society, my experience is quite different. One family I lived with had the father of the family working two full-time jobs during the week and working day labor jobs on the weekends. He worked in the restaurant industry in Chicago and was paid under the table by two of the bigger hotel operations in the downtown hotel rows. He was paid about 40% less than other workers that were paid above the table. He was not provided any health care benefits and had no compensation for any days he missed due to illness, family issues, or any other matter for which most of us get days off.
His wife worked in the neighborhood by making homemade tamales and selling them to neighbors. Since her tamales were really delicious, many of the neighbors would buy them... but only when they needed them and at a price that would make the local grocers--even the Mexican groceries--appear to be price gouging. They supported four kids with this income, avoided any contact with the police by being "good citizens," and did not go to the doctor, clinics or even the ER for any illness. When the father was hurt at work--and not covered by workman's compensation--he was rushed to County in Chicago and was sutured up at a cost that the family could not afford. But in order to avoid any contact with the authorities, he found a way to pay a weekly amount that eventually paid off the bill.
The vast majority of our neighbors were receiving some form of welfare: food stamps, AFDC (this was the early 1980s), assistance from the township trustee, etc. The local steel mills had hit the skids and a lot of the neighborhood households were hit hard by the layoffs and firings. Many of those that had worked at the mills were now receiving food stamps while this family was barely making it. An average dinner in this home consisted of rice, beans and tortillas.
I came to know five other families in the same town that lived a similar lifestyle, all barely making ends meet, but all refusing to reach out for assistance because of the risk that INS would find them.
But, while living and working in Boston, Massachusetts, I came to know a family that was here illegally from Ireland. The husband worked as an investment manager for a large bank. He had forged identity and immigration documents that allowed him to work (which he got from a huge network of Irish-Americans and illegally present Irish immigrants living in Southie). He lived in a very decent home which he bought four years after he arrived in the US. He used food stamps, welfare and other welfare resources over the first year he and his family lived in the Boston area. No one questioned his right to receive these benefits because he was white. He actually told stories about standing in the welfare office when Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens, under went more scrutiny than he did, even though he had an obvious Irish brogue.
Within a year of his arrival, he had a job, was off welfare, had forged documents that empowered him to work above the table, paid taxes, and was considered an asset to his neighborhood. Had it not been for his arrest for domestic violence and driving under the influence (he beat his wife and then for a drive), his status of being here illegally would never have come into question. However, because of his arrest, he was ordered into a substance abuse evaluation process. It was discovered that he regularly drank, regularly beat his wife and kids, and regularly engaged in illegal activities found in the Southie area (South Boston is the home of a lot of organized crime). Despite all of this, he did not lose his job, was not immediately deported, and was not ostracized in his neighborhood.
How different were these two families. The family that was easily identified as being different and foreign to our country was isolated and categorized as a danger to our society, but never did anything illegal. The family that was identified as being "acceptable" in our society was the family that placed the burdens upon our resources.
2. The Labor Pool Is Not An Asset. As is the case in the article that prompted this post, many Americans believe that there is a need for migrant workers in our society. But the reality of that perception is simply that many Americans want lower prices at the supermarket and department stores than we want just wages for workers. Some of our largest corporations are opposed to reform of our immigration policies and practices because they benefit from the way things work. They want to be free to employ those that are here illegally because it costs them less to do so. They do not have to compensate these folks in a fair way. Our big corporations are more interested in lining the pockets of the executive management--many of whom are also major stockholders--than paying a just wage and providing fair protections for their employees.
There continues to be a sense in our nation that an employee is a burden upon the company. That only the stockholders and the executives should be compensated for their contributions and risks. But in reality, it is the employees of these big corporations that provide the greatest asset for operations and production, and take the greatest risks in keeping the company viable and profitable. Without the work of employees, the company may exist, but doesn't produce. Without the workforce, the reputation of these corporations would be in the gutter. The greatest executive in the world cannot manage a company without workers. In many cases, employees are also stockholders, but are treated as second- or third-class members of the corporation.
Such was the case when I worked for one of the larger broadband cable providers in the US. I owned stock in the company. I worked hard as a middle manager to assure that what we did produced results. Yet, when I raised issues of ethics and fairness to our employees, our stockholders, or our customers I was dismissed, criticized and punished. When I raised issues about not paying our service providers and vendors in a timely fashion, I was fought tooth and nail by my superiors. In fact, I was once ordered not to pay a vendor that had already performed work for the company and for whom we were four years in arrears regarding payment. I witnessed employees being falsely accused on misconduct and/or theft. I found several vendors to be using illegal aliens as part of the cleaning crews for over 100 facilities.
But it is a perpetual myth in our society that we need the labor pool provided by immigrants. The economic reality is that no employment void or opportunity remains unmet for long in our nation. If all of the immigrant cab drivers in New York City were deported today, and if regulations regarding how hack contracts and labor were enforced, every cab in NYC would still be on the road.
The reality is that if every immigrant domestic worker were deported today, all of those households needing domestic help would find a way to either do the work themselves or pay a fair wage to an American citizen willing to work. If every immigrant restaurant worker were deported today, there would be Americans able and willing to fill the vacancies. If every immigrant farm worker were pushed out of our fields, and agro-businesses were forced to pay a living wage, there would be Americans lining up to be hired.
But the reality is that no one in business, state legislatures, congress or the White House wants such deportation of all our immigrants. Our leaders--business and government--want a pool of exploitable laborers. They always have wanted exactly that type of labor pool. That underlying philosophy was what kept slavery alive and well during the drafting of our Constitution, even though a significant number of signatories found slavery to be repugnant. But many of the wealthy and powerful in our nation at the time needed an exploitable labor pool to keep their wealth and influence.
During the 19th century, we needed exploitable labor pools to lay railroad tracks, so we imported the Irish, the Chinese and others to be exploited. But these immigrants--legally or illegally present in the country--were so eager for an opportunity to improve their lot in life, they were willing to be exploited. Our railroads produced some of our most wealthy and powerful characters, including those we labeled "robber barons" because of their absolute monopolies. Of course, those robber barons became wealthy and powerful by buying and selling congress members and other politicians.
Our coal mines have operated with a long history of exploitations, even having songs written about owing their "souls to the company store." Even today, our coal mining operations refuse to take steps to provide the simplest and cheapest safety equipment, at least one of which would have saved lives in the most recent disastrous cave-ins in Virginia. But anyone that knows the history of Appalachia knows that the coal industry has abused and used immigrants and locals that were willing to work hard... often without fair and just compensation, or consideration of their health. In fact, the federal government had to get involved in regulation just to deal with issues of "black lung disease" because these coal barons would not take steps to prevent it, or provide care for those that contracted it.
Our steel mills have a long history of exploiting our immigrant populations. Starting with the Irish, moving on to the Central Eastern Europeans (Slovak, Serb, Croats, Poles), then moving to migrant blacks and "hillbillies" (aka rednecks) from the South, and most recently the Mexican and Latino populations. In his book, The Land of the Millrats, Richard Dorson, a Harvard-trained scholar, demonstrates that the rise of US Steel was on the backs of these immigrant populations.
The auto industry followed suit with the steel industries, exploiting similar groups. So, too, has our fishing industry taken advantage of immigrants. In places like Fall River and Gloucester, Massachusetts, the fishing industry has a history of taking advantage of immigrant populations. In Fall River, there is a,long history of labor abuses of Portuguese immigrants. Gloucester used to be filled with Italian immigrants. Our garment industry has long exploited immigrants as well, starting with Irish and Scandanavian immigrants, and now exploiting Latinos.
Our restaurants and cleaning services are filled with immigrant laborers. In Worcester, Massachusetts, it is difficult to find a maid or janitor in a hotel that is not either a Latino or a newly immigrated Arab (mostly from Lebanon or Jordan). In most restaurants, the busboys, dishwashers and lower-level prep workers are usually Latino, even in places such as Chesterton, Indiana (which doesn't have a lot of Latinos living in the town).
We also have major underground industries that exploit immigrants. Our porn and sex industries are notorious sources of immigrant exploitation. Many porn sites on the worldwide web exclaim that they have Latino, Asian or Russian women. The sex slave traffic involves mostly immigrant populations.
There is a bottom line here. Our immigration policies and practices have historically served a specific purpose of allowing, often promoting, exploitation by the wealthier and more powerful in our nation. The opposition cited in this NY Times article only proves the history and my point that our policies and practices are deliberately pushed into directions that serve specific groups of the wealthy and powerful.
What we need is a reform of our immigration policies and practices that is just, fair and provides for consideration of our overall needs and the needs of those immigrating to our nation. We need a foreign policy that does not support despotic regimes, promotes human rights, and shuts down trade with countries that exploit their own people by not providing basic human needs and rights. But we are not likely to see that kind of reform because we are not being told the truth and are being sold a lot of media hype and cultural mythology. We would rather blame the victims, find scapegoats, categorize and pigeon-hole people, discriminate and empower big corporations--and those that run them--to run, or ruin, our lives.
We hear numerous Americans discussing illegal immigration as a major problem. We hear stories about "illegals" taking American jobs. We hear numerous complaints about the costs of coping with the problems these "illegal aliens" bring into our nation, especially crime, health care, "free" benefits, etc. But most of the statistics quoted by the hard core opponents of any type of reform to our immigration approach are off and distorted to such a degree that it appeals to the basest emotions we experience, but never reaches our reasoning abilities.
The most often misquoted and misrepresented statistic is the burden "illegals" place on our law enforcement and correctional processes. Even though the actual figures are not tracked by local, state or federal law enforcement or prosecution authorities, many of the anti-immigration reform folks continue to cite stats on the tremendous burden these folks are putting upon us.
Another set of stats used by those that oppose reform of our immigration policies is the burden placed upon our "welfare" systems. The argument is that these folks place a huge burden on our welfare programs. A recent statistic I heard on a news report on CNN cited that for every dollar contributed to our tax base by "illegals," two dollars are spent to support their welfare. Of course, there was no actual source cited by the proponents of such statistics. The actual basis of such analysis was not disclosed in the study cited (neither on the news report or in the actual study), and the validity of was taken at face value.
While I am certain that some "burden" is experienced upon our society by immigrants entering our nation, I am not certain that those entering our nation illegally place any more burden upon us than those that enter via legal processes. I say this because the vast number of those here on illegal terms do everything within their power to avoid any contact with officials and authorities that could call into question their immigration status. These folks know, or at least believe, that even a traffic ticket could result in referral to INS and ICE. So our "illegal alien" population is significantly underground, under counted, under represented and not accurately assessed by any legitimate study.
In many ways, these folks are in a similar situation as most homeless persons. We have a stereotype of what these folks represent, how they live, how many there are on our streets, and how much of a burden they place upon us. But as is the case with our homeless population, the reality is so significantly different that we cannot fathom the truth. But I have lived in homes where there have been members of the household that were here illegally, so I know some "truths" on these matters.
1. Our Perceptions About Illegal Aliens Are Whacked. While most people think of these folks as being a burden upon our society, my experience is quite different. One family I lived with had the father of the family working two full-time jobs during the week and working day labor jobs on the weekends. He worked in the restaurant industry in Chicago and was paid under the table by two of the bigger hotel operations in the downtown hotel rows. He was paid about 40% less than other workers that were paid above the table. He was not provided any health care benefits and had no compensation for any days he missed due to illness, family issues, or any other matter for which most of us get days off.
His wife worked in the neighborhood by making homemade tamales and selling them to neighbors. Since her tamales were really delicious, many of the neighbors would buy them... but only when they needed them and at a price that would make the local grocers--even the Mexican groceries--appear to be price gouging. They supported four kids with this income, avoided any contact with the police by being "good citizens," and did not go to the doctor, clinics or even the ER for any illness. When the father was hurt at work--and not covered by workman's compensation--he was rushed to County in Chicago and was sutured up at a cost that the family could not afford. But in order to avoid any contact with the authorities, he found a way to pay a weekly amount that eventually paid off the bill.
The vast majority of our neighbors were receiving some form of welfare: food stamps, AFDC (this was the early 1980s), assistance from the township trustee, etc. The local steel mills had hit the skids and a lot of the neighborhood households were hit hard by the layoffs and firings. Many of those that had worked at the mills were now receiving food stamps while this family was barely making it. An average dinner in this home consisted of rice, beans and tortillas.
I came to know five other families in the same town that lived a similar lifestyle, all barely making ends meet, but all refusing to reach out for assistance because of the risk that INS would find them.
But, while living and working in Boston, Massachusetts, I came to know a family that was here illegally from Ireland. The husband worked as an investment manager for a large bank. He had forged identity and immigration documents that allowed him to work (which he got from a huge network of Irish-Americans and illegally present Irish immigrants living in Southie). He lived in a very decent home which he bought four years after he arrived in the US. He used food stamps, welfare and other welfare resources over the first year he and his family lived in the Boston area. No one questioned his right to receive these benefits because he was white. He actually told stories about standing in the welfare office when Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens, under went more scrutiny than he did, even though he had an obvious Irish brogue.
Within a year of his arrival, he had a job, was off welfare, had forged documents that empowered him to work above the table, paid taxes, and was considered an asset to his neighborhood. Had it not been for his arrest for domestic violence and driving under the influence (he beat his wife and then for a drive), his status of being here illegally would never have come into question. However, because of his arrest, he was ordered into a substance abuse evaluation process. It was discovered that he regularly drank, regularly beat his wife and kids, and regularly engaged in illegal activities found in the Southie area (South Boston is the home of a lot of organized crime). Despite all of this, he did not lose his job, was not immediately deported, and was not ostracized in his neighborhood.
How different were these two families. The family that was easily identified as being different and foreign to our country was isolated and categorized as a danger to our society, but never did anything illegal. The family that was identified as being "acceptable" in our society was the family that placed the burdens upon our resources.
2. The Labor Pool Is Not An Asset. As is the case in the article that prompted this post, many Americans believe that there is a need for migrant workers in our society. But the reality of that perception is simply that many Americans want lower prices at the supermarket and department stores than we want just wages for workers. Some of our largest corporations are opposed to reform of our immigration policies and practices because they benefit from the way things work. They want to be free to employ those that are here illegally because it costs them less to do so. They do not have to compensate these folks in a fair way. Our big corporations are more interested in lining the pockets of the executive management--many of whom are also major stockholders--than paying a just wage and providing fair protections for their employees.
There continues to be a sense in our nation that an employee is a burden upon the company. That only the stockholders and the executives should be compensated for their contributions and risks. But in reality, it is the employees of these big corporations that provide the greatest asset for operations and production, and take the greatest risks in keeping the company viable and profitable. Without the work of employees, the company may exist, but doesn't produce. Without the workforce, the reputation of these corporations would be in the gutter. The greatest executive in the world cannot manage a company without workers. In many cases, employees are also stockholders, but are treated as second- or third-class members of the corporation.
Such was the case when I worked for one of the larger broadband cable providers in the US. I owned stock in the company. I worked hard as a middle manager to assure that what we did produced results. Yet, when I raised issues of ethics and fairness to our employees, our stockholders, or our customers I was dismissed, criticized and punished. When I raised issues about not paying our service providers and vendors in a timely fashion, I was fought tooth and nail by my superiors. In fact, I was once ordered not to pay a vendor that had already performed work for the company and for whom we were four years in arrears regarding payment. I witnessed employees being falsely accused on misconduct and/or theft. I found several vendors to be using illegal aliens as part of the cleaning crews for over 100 facilities.
But it is a perpetual myth in our society that we need the labor pool provided by immigrants. The economic reality is that no employment void or opportunity remains unmet for long in our nation. If all of the immigrant cab drivers in New York City were deported today, and if regulations regarding how hack contracts and labor were enforced, every cab in NYC would still be on the road.
The reality is that if every immigrant domestic worker were deported today, all of those households needing domestic help would find a way to either do the work themselves or pay a fair wage to an American citizen willing to work. If every immigrant restaurant worker were deported today, there would be Americans able and willing to fill the vacancies. If every immigrant farm worker were pushed out of our fields, and agro-businesses were forced to pay a living wage, there would be Americans lining up to be hired.
But the reality is that no one in business, state legislatures, congress or the White House wants such deportation of all our immigrants. Our leaders--business and government--want a pool of exploitable laborers. They always have wanted exactly that type of labor pool. That underlying philosophy was what kept slavery alive and well during the drafting of our Constitution, even though a significant number of signatories found slavery to be repugnant. But many of the wealthy and powerful in our nation at the time needed an exploitable labor pool to keep their wealth and influence.
During the 19th century, we needed exploitable labor pools to lay railroad tracks, so we imported the Irish, the Chinese and others to be exploited. But these immigrants--legally or illegally present in the country--were so eager for an opportunity to improve their lot in life, they were willing to be exploited. Our railroads produced some of our most wealthy and powerful characters, including those we labeled "robber barons" because of their absolute monopolies. Of course, those robber barons became wealthy and powerful by buying and selling congress members and other politicians.
Our coal mines have operated with a long history of exploitations, even having songs written about owing their "souls to the company store." Even today, our coal mining operations refuse to take steps to provide the simplest and cheapest safety equipment, at least one of which would have saved lives in the most recent disastrous cave-ins in Virginia. But anyone that knows the history of Appalachia knows that the coal industry has abused and used immigrants and locals that were willing to work hard... often without fair and just compensation, or consideration of their health. In fact, the federal government had to get involved in regulation just to deal with issues of "black lung disease" because these coal barons would not take steps to prevent it, or provide care for those that contracted it.
Our steel mills have a long history of exploiting our immigrant populations. Starting with the Irish, moving on to the Central Eastern Europeans (Slovak, Serb, Croats, Poles), then moving to migrant blacks and "hillbillies" (aka rednecks) from the South, and most recently the Mexican and Latino populations. In his book, The Land of the Millrats, Richard Dorson, a Harvard-trained scholar, demonstrates that the rise of US Steel was on the backs of these immigrant populations.
The auto industry followed suit with the steel industries, exploiting similar groups. So, too, has our fishing industry taken advantage of immigrants. In places like Fall River and Gloucester, Massachusetts, the fishing industry has a history of taking advantage of immigrant populations. In Fall River, there is a,long history of labor abuses of Portuguese immigrants. Gloucester used to be filled with Italian immigrants. Our garment industry has long exploited immigrants as well, starting with Irish and Scandanavian immigrants, and now exploiting Latinos.
Our restaurants and cleaning services are filled with immigrant laborers. In Worcester, Massachusetts, it is difficult to find a maid or janitor in a hotel that is not either a Latino or a newly immigrated Arab (mostly from Lebanon or Jordan). In most restaurants, the busboys, dishwashers and lower-level prep workers are usually Latino, even in places such as Chesterton, Indiana (which doesn't have a lot of Latinos living in the town).
We also have major underground industries that exploit immigrants. Our porn and sex industries are notorious sources of immigrant exploitation. Many porn sites on the worldwide web exclaim that they have Latino, Asian or Russian women. The sex slave traffic involves mostly immigrant populations.
There is a bottom line here. Our immigration policies and practices have historically served a specific purpose of allowing, often promoting, exploitation by the wealthier and more powerful in our nation. The opposition cited in this NY Times article only proves the history and my point that our policies and practices are deliberately pushed into directions that serve specific groups of the wealthy and powerful.
What we need is a reform of our immigration policies and practices that is just, fair and provides for consideration of our overall needs and the needs of those immigrating to our nation. We need a foreign policy that does not support despotic regimes, promotes human rights, and shuts down trade with countries that exploit their own people by not providing basic human needs and rights. But we are not likely to see that kind of reform because we are not being told the truth and are being sold a lot of media hype and cultural mythology. We would rather blame the victims, find scapegoats, categorize and pigeon-hole people, discriminate and empower big corporations--and those that run them--to run, or ruin, our lives.
Companies that hire illegal aliens could be banned from receiving federal contracts for 10 years under an amendment to the Senate-passed supplemental defense spending measure. Contractor groups are fighting to keep the language out of the final bill.
Under the provision, employers that violate immigration laws would be barred from receiving federal grants, contracts or cooperative agreements for a decade if they already do business with the government, or for seven years if they do not hold existing contracts or agreements.
The General Services Administration could waive or shorten the debarment period if it were found to be in the interests of national defense or security. Companies that participate in an electronic employment eligibility verification program, jointly run by the Homeland Security Department and the Social Security Administration, would be shielded from penalties.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., first introduced the provision as an amendment to a minimum wage bill, where it passed unanimously in January. "Contractors need to be held accountable for not hiring Americans," Sessions said at the time. "Government contractors should set an example because they are being paid with tax dollars."
The minimum wage bill itself did not move forward in the Senate, leading Sessions to present the amendment with the supplemental spending measure. That legislation, which the Senate approved by a narrow margin just before leaving on its Easter break, provides additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, hurricane relief, veterans' health and agriculture disaster aid.
To fight the debarment proposal, the 10 industry associations that form the Acquisition Reform Working Group wrote lawmakers and are pressing their case on Capitol Hill in hopes that the measure would not survive the House-Senate conference process and be signed into law.
"We agree that companies should not hire illegal workers, and we support the criminal penalties already in place to deter and enforce such behavior," the coalition wrote. "However, we strongly disagree with the concept of utilizing the federal procurement process as the primary enforcement mechanism for such violations."
The associations in the coalition are the Aerospace Industries Association, American Consulting Engineers Council, American Council of Independent Laboratories, AeA, Contract Services Association, Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology Association of America, National Defense Industrial Association, Professional Services Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Contract Services Association said the measure would conflict with federal acquisition regulations that say suspension and debarment procedures should not be used for punishment outside the scope of acquisition rules.
"If implemented, this legislation would politicize this well-established procedure, and it would work against the government's interests in efficiently and effectively obtaining goods and services from the private sector," said Barry Cullen, president of the association.
A spokesman for the group dismissed the employment eligibility verification system as a poor tool for employers, citing studies based on 1980s and 1990s data that found problems with the system. "It is apparent that there are significant problems with the Basic Pilot system ... we believe that using this flawed system is by no means a solution to this amendment," the spokesman said.
Chris Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which runs the program, said the system operates smoothly. Based on the latest figures, he said, employers get an instantaneous confirmation of an employee's eligibility to work in 92 percent of cases. In the remaining 8 percent of cases, an answer is returned within 10 days, he said, and during that time the employee can begin work while the case is settled.
Bentley said the system could handle a surge in verifications if a large number of employers joined suddenly. "The infrastructure is in place to handle an expansion of the program at a very rapid pace," he said, but it would require hiring additional personnel to do manual verifications for those cases not resolved instantly through computer-based checks.
"The service, and the department, is confident that we'll be able to meet any expansion that may come down the road as far as usage of the program," he said, adding, "If we were looking to add 8 million potential employees, we'd look to have some structured, phase-in approach to do that."
posted by Jim Downey at 6:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home