Taotao Tano's statement on Public Law 15-108

Letters to the Editor Friday, December 07, 2007

Finally, after months of aggressive advocating concerning the treatment of our people regarding priority in employment, we were finally heard. Public 15-108, a law that we supported since the day it was first introduced till the day it was passed and signed into law, has now become a reality. For years both local business community, non-business locals and nonresidents alike have availed themselves of the benefits of our labor and immigration loopholes and flaws. This law will correct all the problems that have plagued our island for years. If any of you recall, I addressed the issue of fairness in compensation and the closing of our vocational training at Northern Marianas College and why Public Law 9-71 was shelved before the Congressional Legislative Field Hearing chaired by U.S. Congresswoman Donna Christensen on Aug. 15, 2007. Today we have achieved what we aggressively fought for and the legislative body heard all of us Taotao Tano. Let me explain the contents of Public Law 15-108 and its benefits. The new labor law is an important issue that affects you! The Legislature passed PL 15-108, a good law aimed at full employment of citizens here in the Commonwealth. That is the Legislature's first responsibility: to take care of us, the citizens of the Commonwealth. Now we need to support what the Legislature has done for us. Foreign workers are marching against the law. They are interested in protecting their jobs. The new law aims to put a citizen in every good job now held by a foreign worker. Foreign workers who are replaced by citizens might have to go home. That is the heart of this dispute and these demonstrations. The Taotao Tano organization supports full employment for citizens. It should be one of our primary goals as people of the Commonwealth so that we can have a successful economy. This is what the new law does for us. First, it puts teeth in the requirement of 20 percent citizen employment. Every employer who has 10 or more employees must comply with the 20 percent requirement, and this requirement goes up to 30 percent in five years. Second, it gives the Secretary of Labor power to require every employer, no matter how small, to employ at least one citizen. This means the barriers will fall, and the Labor Department is now better equipped to push for citizen employment.Third, it provides citizens with a new way of helping enforce the law. We can now complain to the Labor Department if an employer refuses to hire a qualified citizen and hires a foreign worker instead. Now we can use the Labor Department hearing officers to hear our grievances just like the foreign workers can. This levels the playing field. Fourth, it requires employers who have foreign workers in good jobs to provide a manpower plan explaining how they will train citizens for these jobs. Employers have to work with WIA, and the College, and SWAT, and others who are trying so hard to get citizens employed in good jobs.Fifth, and very important, it requires all foreign workers to go home once every three years. You've heard a lot of argument about this provision, but it is perfectly sound. The United States imposes a similar requirement, but they make foreign workers go home for a year. This exit requirement will give our local people a chance at jobs that they never could hope to gain because these jobs are always occupied by foreign workers. When these foreign workers go home for a periodic exit, our citizens can apply for these jobs. They will be backed by WIA and other organizations sponsoring training for us. The Public Auditor's report points out how important it is for citizens to have access to these good jobs now held by foreign workers. Some of these jobs pay $10 an hour and more.The lawyers who make a living from fees paid by foreign workers are telling you that the law is somehow wrong and that we are racists for supporting it. Don't believe them. The Legislature studied this law for over a year. Cinta Kaipat, who pushed for this law, is a lawyer. Businesses in the Commonwealth had their lawyers look it over carefully. The lawyers for foreign workers talk about constitutional violations, but those are all a matter of how the law is carried out. We have some good people at the Labor Department now, and they will implement the law correctly. If they make mistakes, there's always an appeal to correct mistakes. The Legislature has passed this law to help us. It is now our responsibility to speak up and support what they did. We will benefit from it only if we make sure it is carried out and enforced. Taotao Tano is urging that when there is a reduction in force, the regulations require that foreign workers be laid off first and citizens be laid off last. We have other ideas to protect citizens within the good framework of this new law. All of us should help make the promise of this new law come true.
Gregorio CruzPresident, Taotao Tano CNMI Inc.

Is this what being investor-friendly is?

Letters to the Editor Tuesday, December 04, 2007

I have spoken about how difficult it is to do business here in the CNMI with the current policies of labor. Yes, it is quite true that the current labor laws are not favorable to the investors, so who are we kidding? The islands' labor laws prevent us from being investor-friendly, as many had hoped due to the administration's commitment and guarantee that new investment will pour in. Unfortunately, there were only a few of businesses that actually came, most notably Asiana Airlines purchasing the Lao Lao Bay Golf Course. Of course, this is good for the islands, but I don't think that the CNMI should bend over backwards for one particular company. As many would say, be fair to everyone, place fairness above everything else. I heard that we already have an Asiana Day from the recent efforts of Asiana placing daytime flights to the CNMI. Fine, but how about other airlines that have come through and provided the needed aid to our ailing tourist arrivals these days, notably Northwest Airlines. Is there a Northwest Airlines Day? I am an advocate of what MVA does to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities for the CNMI, but I am not in favor of providing benefits to one company and one company alone. It is good to know of the investment, but we must not give up everything we have and cater to their every need as we must be fair to everyone else, whether big or small. My point is really on the investors side as I have friends who have invested their life savings and more to do business here in the CNMI. I may not speak of conglomerate companies such as Asiana Airlines, but nevertheless it is these businesses that keep the economy stable, the little ones that cannot be undermined. I continuously mention about our labor laws, those of which need to be heard and changed. I mentioned about a friend who was coerced into making a complaint against his employer on false accusations only to stay in the CNMI longer and find a new employer! What are we doing to protect the employers? It seems that these individuals are provided a system that benefits them and they know it! Where is Department of Commerce in this? Where are our business leaders from the Saipan Chamber on this? Where is Labor on this? Where is our administration on this? We cannot be an investor-friendly island if our laws do not reflect that. I hear numerous stories about new businesses being formed and how they crumble due to a simple labor complaint. I do wish for our newly elected leaders to reassess the current labor laws. As I mentioned in my previous letter to the editor, we need to address the following: 1. Employers' responsibility for pregnant employees. Why should this be the responsibility of the employer, when this is clearly not a sickness? Shouldn't the laws be changed to have the employees acquire their personal medical insurance as our locals do? It would be nice and fair if employers offered these benefits to our locals as well, but we all know this will not happen. Granted the minimum wage increase, now everyone should be on the same playing field, both locals and contract workers alike. 2. Investigation on labor complaints. I believe that Labor needs to step up its investigations and not be one-sided. I mentioned about the need to go into Labor and have the complaint sanctioned by a labor official, how ridiculous is this? For every complaint we record, it must be sanctioned by a Labor official in person while the employer and the employee is present. I do not understand the reasoning behind all of these. I thought the employer simply records the incident, have the employee acknowledge their faults as they sign and that covers the issues, but in my experience and through numerous friends of mine, that is never the case as Labor in most cases take the one-sided story of the employees who make the complaints. Bright and intellectual individuals working at Labor also mentioned that as an employer, your rights are limited when a complaint is made. This is coming from Labor itself! How can fair judgment on employees versus employers be provided if the system and its laws favor the employees ONLY? Investor-friendly? I don't think so. 3. Another item that needs to be looked into is CUC. I am not here to rant and rave about the rising cost in utilities even though it is hurting, but more on the professionalism of the staff at the utilities office. For a few months now, I have been receiving erroneous utility charges as provided by the CUC. Many times in the few months we have met with CUC officials informing them of the erroneous utility charges that sum up to the thousands on a room that does not require or use up the power as stated in the statement we receive. The response was, “We will correct the problem and you should not see this again.” Behold, the next month's billing contains another erroneous charge from the utility company. We have started to monitor our own usage by recording the daily usage of power. Probably our records are more accurate than that of CUC. Is this one of those get-rich-quick schemes? Fool the community for personal gain? I challenge the CUC director and for that matter the administration to get down hard on these unnecessary problems that exist within the CUC. These are frustrating issues that businesses need not face. You may also want to look at your people handling these issues. They too make promises that cannot be kept! Sounds too familiar, common politician practices to gain votes. We need the public sector to be more professional, especially when dealing with clients who pay for their salaries. I understand the governor will meet each Cabinet head on separate issues. I do hope that these items I am mentioning on Labor and CUC will be looked at seriously. I still believe that we can all benefit from the right leadership and the proper action taken. Governor, as the top official of the CNMI, you have the power to look at these faults and rectify the problems to make the islands an investor-friendly place so more of us in the business community can bring in the needed investors for our economy.Hermaine Q. PhillipsKoblerville, Saipan
Back to top

Home Weather Advertising Classifieds Subscription Contact Us About Us Archives ©2006 Saipan Tribune. All Rights Reserved
MORE Letters to the Editor
Fair play
Taotao Tano's statement on Public Law 15-108
In defense of Tina and Ron
Limitations on freedom of speech
Prejudice
Dropped stitch
Ron Hodges Day
More meaningless posturing
Say what?!
A time to take a stand
What we teach at MHS
Are you serious?!
A letter for laughs
To all nonresident organizations
A march for unity
Throwing stones in glass houses
Too much time in their hands
Parochial mindsets
Appreciation to Precinct IV Voters
Standing shoulder to shoulder
Labor protection, not restriction
Who are the true 'personae non gratae'?
Tactics of intimidation and repression
On secondhand smoke
'Thank you for supporting Rota casino'
In defense of employers, part II
Support for Kumho investment
Thank you
'Let us all help MVA'
'Thank you for the support'

Retirement Fund will not allow withdrawal of contributions

Monday November 26, 2007 By Gemma Q. Casas Variety News Staff

GOVERNMENT employees hoping to get extra cash this year through a law allowing them to withdraw their contributions from the Retirement Fund even if they have reached 15 years of service will not be allowed to do so.
The Retirement Fund board of trustees adopted a resolution last Tuesday allowing the agency’s administration “to suspend processing applications for retirement or any other benefits of any Retirement Fund member with deficient employer contributions.”
Juan T. Guerrero, board chairman, told Variety in a telephone interview that the resolution would apply to all current government employees seeking to retire or withdraw their contributions.
“The resolution basically freezes all applications for retirement,” he said. “I’m pretty sure that there’s going to be some reaction from employees. They are not going to like this, but we have a fiduciary duty to protect the Retirement Fund’s assets for all the members’ benefit. The court has ruled that the Fund can decide on this issue. We’re protecting the interests of everybody, not just those who have retired.”
He said the move will not affect the pensions of retirees.
“The pensioners are protected,” he added.
The Fund fears the islands’ economic meltdown may force many vested employees with over 10 years of service to seek a lump-sum withdrawal of their contributions rather than choose to receive pensions at age 62.
As a rule, government employees who have contributed for 10 years or more to the local pension system cannot withdraw their contributions anymore.
This rule was changed on Oct. 15 this year when House Bill 15-277 became Public Law 15-98 through a legislative override.
This new law essentially allows Class 1 members or those hired before May 7, 1989 to withdraw their 15 years or less of contributions from the local pension system.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial vetoed House Bill 15-277 saying: “The existing 10-year period for withdrawal is sufficient and fair to members who are considering whether to withdraw their contributions. Approval of the 15-year period will decrease the investment capital of the Fund, and further risk the ability of the Fund to continue to meet its obligation of caring for the commonwealth’s retirees and their families.”
Guerrero said they were strongly opposed to the bill.
“That’s a very bad law — we want active employees to be contributing to the system,” he said.