Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I-9? Federal

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DAW
    replied
    Agreed. One of the many reasons to keep I-9s in their own separate file is that you really do not want your line supervisors/managers to know the visa status of their employees. What they do not know they cannot use in a potentially illegal manner that violates the IRCA law. There are somewhat similar issues with certain medical records.

    As a payroll person, I would say that keeping a copy of the SS card (if available) in payroll as a payroll record is recommended by IRS as is payroll independently verifying the SSN number and exact spelling of the employee name in the payroll records. It is beyond painful for payroll to have to correct those errors in later years and worth a great deal of effort to get it correct the first time. IRS's IRC law is legally unrelated to ICE's IRCA law, so there are two different unrelated laws in play regarding copying SS cards (if available).

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    Once the I-9 was completed and the employee's right to work in the US was established, I think that any demand to see any particular document, with the possible exception of the SS card for payroll purposes, would be VERY risky to the employer unless there was a VALID reason to believe that the I-9 documentation had been falsified or there was a VALID business reason why the employer needed to see it. Disparate impact is not the only issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlca
    replied
    Interesting..
    I understand why the law is the way it is: establishing a legal right to work shouldn't depend on the employer dictating a particular way of establishing that.

    I suppose though, at some earlier or later point, the employer could require (as a separate event) the production of a particular document (e.g. we need to see your passport, or birth certificate, or diploma) assuming it didn't have a disparate impact. And it would be on the employer's head to show that there wasn't a disparate impact.. that might be tough if there wasn't an occupational need (BFOQ) for the requested document, because the document issuing practices can be inherently discriminatory.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    Actually, it wouldn't. The law expressly prohibits an employer from dictating what I-9 documentation they will accept. Therefore, a termination because an employee provided B and C information instead of A, or whatever, would be a wrongful term and would not fall under at-will.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlca
    replied
    Originally posted by cactus jack View Post

    Hey, it works. I have no problem with it. Only time I have had a problem is, as I stated, when they only provide a part of it for me to fill out or when they tell me I *must* provide the A, B or C proofs of identity/right to work THEY want, when as far as I've ever known so long as I provide on of A or one of B & one of C.
    Of course, you can say anything you want, but, then, they don't have to hire you. I would think that saying "we require you to use a list A item", while not required from a immigration law standpoint, is perfectly fine from a "at will" employment standpoint. It doesn't seem to have a disparate impact on a protected class, for instance.



    "I'm sorry sir, you aren't wearing green socks and it's Tuesday, so no job for you". Stupid, but legal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    You're very welcome, CJ.

    Leave a comment:


  • cactus jack
    replied
    Thank you Betty. Man, the I-9 has grown! I remember when it was only four pages! Now it's nine!

    I know one problem I have encountered in the past is when an employer would photocopy only two of the four pages, and expect me to fill it out anyway. I always pushed it back tell them "No, it's not valid", because it's not. Ya got the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement and Privacy Act statement, and as this copy says (and last I knew all versions since God knows when) covers that on page 6 saying ALL of it must be provided.

    Hey, it works. I have no problem with it. Only time I have had a problem is, as I stated, when they only provide a part of it for me to fill out or when they tell me I *must* provide the A, B or C proofs of identity/right to work THEY want, when as far as I've ever known so long as I provide on of A or one of B & one of C.

    Leave a comment:


  • Betty3
    replied
    Here's some good info on the I-9 form.

    http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/f...s/form/i-9.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • cbg
    replied
    You are reading it incorrectly. It is not solely for agricultural employers - it is for all employers, not excluding agricultural employers (which are excluded from some employment laws). ALL employers, regardless of industry, are required to have an I-9 form on file for ALL employees, unless that employee has worked exclusively for that employer since prior to 1986. The I-9 must remain on file until 3 years after hire or one year after termination, whichever is later.

    It isn't perfect. Some employers don't understand how to apply the I-9 information and thus end up hiring people they shouldn't. Others end up employing illegal aliens because false information was provided. Still others deliberately ignore the I-9 and hire illegal workers because they're cheap.

    But the I-9 IS the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • cactus jack
    started a topic I-9? Federal

    I-9? Federal

    What is the importance and relevance to filling out the I-9? I read up on the I-9 and it's for agricultural employers. So why does a retailer have to comply with agricultural employment law? On top of that, why bother with the I-9 to begin with? Some of the places I worked had illegal aliens working there, so the I-9 either doesn't apply to them or it doesn't work.
The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
Working...
X