Meg Whitman And Her Quandary

This story is still evolving, so we'll see what happens. Some folks wonder what the response of Latino voters might be to all this fuss.

I suspect Latinos would understand, and forgive, Meg Whitman for her manner of hiring illegal aliens. The use of third parties to hire illegals, and take the blame for any problems, has long been commonplace among the rich of California.

Latinos would also understand, and forgive, Nicky Diaz, for lying about her immigration status. That, too, has been par-for-the-course for many decades.

I think they will judge harshly, however, the speed with which Meg Whitman tried to distance herself from Nicky Diaz. The advice from lawyers was to separate herself just as fast as possible, of course. The pressure would be nearly-irresistible to do so, of course. Nevertheless, Diaz had been Whitman's housekeeper for nine years. How could a clean separation be made so quickly? And there was such a gulf in power between the two: a billionaire compared to a $23/hour employee. The power balance was so unequal that it wasn't even a standard employer/employee situation, but more like a typical patron/serf relationship that was once common in Latin America and still widely prevalent in many places. Noblesse oblige would require, at the very least, that the patron attempt to assist her employee. No such help was extended.

This is an old story. One of the critiques the old Confederate aristocracy used to throw at the hated Yankees was the assertion that industrialization and the growth of large work forces would inevitably lead to "wage slavery", with no sense of obligation between the classes. They had their own problems, of course (slavery is more barbaric than wage slavery). Still, the old Confederates had a point. Meg Whitman the Barbarian came into view here.

There are many unexplored angles, of course. How did Gloria Allred get mixed up with this? Does the Brown campaign have anything to do with all this? These angles will get more exposure over the days ahead. I'm looking forward to whatever gets exposed.

The nice thing about democracy is that the voters can pass their own judgment of all this on Election Day. Latinos can be part of that jury.

Interestingly, the employment agency Whitman used is backpedaling away just as fast as possible. What use is an employment agency if they don't take the heat?:

There is no signature on page 14 of the documents provided by the Whitman campaign. Suskind says that's a violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Because this wasn't a temporary situation -- the nanny was employed for nine years -- Whitman was responsible for completing the I-9. The I-9 form provided by the campaign does not have the signature of either Whitman or an authorized agent like the placement company.

It wasn't clear if the copy of the documents provided by the campaign was made before either Whitman or her husband signed another copy.

Even if the placement agency, Town & Country Resources, filled out the form, Whitman and her husband are still legally responsible for the I-9 as employers, said Suskind.

The placement company told TPMMuckraker that records show that "as an agency we did everything that was legally required and followed standard procedures at the time."