 |
| "Contract Sealed with Blood" (1896-7) by Bertalan Szekely |
This prompt has two parts: The Scenario and then The Questions. There are four questions. You can answer any number of the questions, but make sure you read the entire prologue in book and the scenario described below before you answer the questions.
The Scenario
Part of author Saket Soni's job as a labor organizer is to help undocumented workers who have been victimized by contractors who hire them but refuse to pay them, either "disappearing" before payday or threatening to turn the workers in to the police or to immigration agents.
Consider the moral implications of this scenario.
On the one hand, you could say that the workers have no right to complain. Any "contract" they agreed to (work for pay) was invalid. They did not have a right to work if they were "undocumented," meaning their were either not U.S. citizens or they did not have a work visa. Whether you consider them to be deceitful criminals or simply foolish risk-takers, they have no one to blame but themselves for their misfortune.
In a way, you could even argue that since word travels, the contractors who refuse to pay them are actually helping the country (and those who have legal permission to work) by discouraging future undocumented workers from taking the same path.
On the other hand, you could say that the the contractors are morally bound to pay the workers and uphold their end of the bargain. If the contractors said they would pay the workers, and the workers did the work they said they would do, that is enough. Perhaps they shouldn't have hired the undocumented workers in the first place, but two wrongs don't make a right.
The Questions:
1. How do you measure the relative value of empathy and justice in such a scenario? Who deserves the most empathy? What does justice require?
2. Should the breach of contract on the part of the contractors (their refusal to pay) be treated separately from the matter of the workers' legal status? If a contractor said they didn't pay the workers because the workers were undocumented, would it be fair for a judge to say that is irrelevant to the case?
3. To what degree is the government responsible for making sure people uphold contracts they agree to? To what degree are individuals responsible for themselves in such matters? How much does the amount of money and effort involved matter? How much does the relative wealth and power of the contracted parties matter?
4. With regard to the courts, is this scenario (hiring undocumented workers/mistreating undocumented workers) understood best as a matter of individuals making bad decisions or is it understood best as a larger societal problem--a practice that must be discontinued for the benefit of society as a whole?
Number your answers. (It is not necessary answer all four of them; answer the ones you want.)
4. This practice of taking advantage of undocumented workers is a larger societal problem that must be halted. While yes, the individuals in question may not have done the proper amount of research before contracting themselves to their own ruin, they are guided down this path by these contractors, blinded by masks of kindness and a promise of a better life for their families. Were this only to affect the individual, or even affect the individual to a much lesser extent, then there is a chance that I may place the blame on the individual; however, these hopeful workers gather every scrap of money that they can from their family, friends, and community to pursue this opportunity with promise that it will all be returned threefold along with a better life. Entire communities are roped into and hurt through this scheme. This boils down to an unethical business model which purposefully takes advantage of workers who are already in bad situations, seeing this opportunity as their big break to free their families of hardship. The contractors’ promises of a better life are not upheld, even though the workers are upholding their end of the deal. In a court situation, if a full and unbreached contract is presented by the contractor, signed by the worker, and if it is fully without legal error, along with proof that the worker is able to understand all that is written within the document and has read and did agree to the details, then I would place the blame on the individual. However, this is an invalid scenario as the workers were undocumented by the country. They were surely aware of the lack of legality in the actions they were performing, yet it was a risk they deemed necessary for the prosperity of their futures. Morally, I place most all of the issues with the contractors. However, in a legal situation, I find the workers to be at fault, even though both sides require the attention of a governing body. This practice of the contractors should fully be stopped, if not of their own will then by the concerned governments, but under the eyes of the law, it is best understood that the individuals are at fault for their poor decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is more of an issue against society rather than just the individuals. I liked your point about ethics. Ethics relate to the situation as a whole. In this example, we find that undocumented workers are expecting promises that will never be upheld by the contractors. These lies are our first ethical issue. The second ethical issue we see is that these workers coming here are taking the places of people that can legally work in America. The undocumented workers are participating in illegal work knowingly and willingly. This is ethically wrong because they know that they are doing something that is illegal in this country. Both sides in the scenario are willing to do something that they know is wrong. The difference in the sides is that one is a lie that will hurt the person being lied to, and the other is a legal matter, like you said. Concerning the statement, "However, in a legal situation, I find the workers to be at fault, even though both sides require the attention of a governing body," I would like to dive deeper. I do agree that the workers are at fault, but would the contractors not be as well? Especially if they are the ones running the business and bringing these individuals over to do illegal work. Is that not also, in a way, participating in illegal activity? You may disagree that it is, but I just feel like we can't say that the workers should take all of the blame in a legal setting, especially when they were given the promise to eventually become legal.
Delete2. If the contractors were aware of the undocumented nature of their workers and entered into a contract with them even despite this, then it falls entirely on them to satisfy the terms of that contract even if the workers are illegal workers. The nature of this employment scheme means that the employer is fully aware that they are hiring illegal immigrants. Therefore, they have no right to deny pay to those same individuals given that the amount of "wrongdoing" between the two parties - the employer and the employed - is level (though I would argue the employer has more to answer for, but for the sake of being as even-handed as possible, I digress). If the employer did not want to pay illegal immigrants, then they should have vetted prospective workers more thoroughly. Workers are workers, and despite their immigration status, should be paid. I am not abundantly familiar with the broad corpus of labor laws, and though this may be a non sequitur, I feel compelled to note that unpaid labor in the US is restricted only to those convicted of a crime worthy of prison time (and even in that case is of course very draconian). Therefore, the breach of contract of an employer should be treated separately from the immigrant status of the workers themselves.
ReplyDelete-Eli Grasso
(1) If I were to judge between the borderline abusive, but legally sound employers and the illegally immigrated, legally uneducated Indian workers who risked everything just for the hope of a better life, I would, without a doubt, side with the workers. They deserve the most empathy, as they were unknowing victims, only pursuing the possibility of a brighter future. Justice, in this case, would require recognizing and fixing the unjust conditions they endured, rather than punishing them for their actions of desperation.
ReplyDelete(2) Firstly, if the employer knowingly hired undocumented immigrants, they should be held accountable for that decision. Secondly, while the workers' legal status is an issue, it shouldn't remove their right to be compensated for the work they performed. The workers should receive the due payment promised in the contract document before any legal action is taken considering their immigration status. They've earned that payment through hard work and deserve to be paid, regardless of their documentation status.
ReplyDelete(3) The U.S. government is responsible for making and enforcing regulations that ensure these contracts are upheld, while also providing a legal framework that protects all involved parties. Individuals are responsible for understanding and agreeing to these contracts, although this responsibility can be challenging for immigrants who may not fully understand terminology, like the case of these construction workers. While money and effort are factors, they should come secondary to justice and fairness. In an ideal world, the wealth and power of the respective parties shouldn’t influence the enforcement of contracts, but in reality, these factors often do influence outcomes, making it even more important for the government to ensure a level playing field for all.
ReplyDelete-Brady Boeck
Delete(4) From what I understand, the problem of hiring and mistreating undocumented workers is not just about individual bad choices; it’s a larger societal issue. When companies exploit undocumented workers, it reflects a systematic abuse of power that affects many people. It's a smaller scale version of a broader problem that needs to be addressed for the benefit of society as a whole.
ReplyDelete-Brady Boeck
Delete1) Workers should be given the most empathy because they have been deceived and taken a huge risk that will impact their lives. These cases can be viewed with broad standards and be dealt with fairly. I think people's stories should be heard and that there should be consequences for misleading immigrant workers.
ReplyDelete2) I think working conditions and contracts apply to cases because the word of the contractor should be upheld or there should be a clear protocol to ensure the workers who have been misled are helped.
-Jenna Whitehead
(3) From what I know, the U.S. government is not responsible for upholding the rights of undocumented or illegal immigrants as they are not U.S. citizens and aren’t protected under federal law. I do however think that the U.S. government should protect those who have legal contracts. By protection, I mean that their contracts should be honored.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of money and effort shouldn’t be a factor; it should be about honoring the agreed upon terms of the parties involved.
As for the relative wealth and power of the contracted parties, there could be more issues involved. For example, in the book, Signal International is a large company with money and connections inside ICE. With the knowledge that the Indian workers’ H-2B visas were expired, ICE remained silent and continued to let them work because this benefitted Signal. Signal uses this power extort work from the Indian workers under the influence of fear. Without the visas, the workers could have been deported.
2. Understandably, each case would be treated differently according to the individual and their situation. In court, a judge may convict the immigrant based on their legal (or in this case- illegal) status in America. One who is undocumented yet signs a contract may not hold the same weight as one who is documented and seen as legal, and therefore a citizen whose rights have been violated. I don’t know much about labor laws but in extreme cases much like the ones in the novel, it would be morally right to give protection and grant exceptions, especially since the immigrants were victims in this case. Contractors who lay out rules and expectations knowingly signed with illegals, which makes them at fault even if it was the contractee who agreed. In the novel, some immigrants could barely read their contracts yet still signed them, all for the chance to make enough to get by. Both could be seen at fault, but the ones with more legal advantages would be the contractors.
ReplyDelete1. It is hard measure the value of either in this scenario. On one hand you want to have empathy for the workers whom are trying to make money to provide for their families. You also want to be mad at the contractors for hiring them then trying to get out of paying them since they are undocumented. These contractors knew they were undocumented which is why they chose to hire them because it would be easy to get out of paying them. Then there is the fact that these workers are undocumented so it is hard for there to be any justice served in regards to them not being paid. If they were documented workers justice would require the contractors to pay them for their work. The workers deserve the empathy but I don't believe the justice system would see it that way considering their documentation status in the U.S. Therefore, I do not think neither empathy nor justice would carry much relative value in this situation since neither can help.
ReplyDelete-Abigayle Shropshire
hard to*
Delete1. Empathy is easy to apply to the workers in most cases, as they are being cheated out of an agreement even if they should not have made it in the first place. The very act of making an agreement with an undocumented worker makes you an accessory at best. In terms of Justice, the worker should be given their compensation, but they should face the consequence of their decision to come and work illegally. They are wasting government time and resources. Therefore, they should be forced to pay taxes and made to go through the proper immigration channels, which may require deporting them or requiring they pay fees or have pay docked to compensate for the resources directed to assist them.
Delete