• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper

Hatuey said:
I don't think she much cared about the person's legal status as long as they provided cheap labor.
Click to expand...

Niki was paid $23 an hour 15hrs a week whether she actually worked the whole 15 or not. She had paid vacations, paid maternity leave. She also had flexible hrs to where she could work when she wanted. I think an American would do that job.
I watched the press conference and am convinced Meg Whitman did nothing wrong.
The only thing close were the people who thought that with her means, she should have paid for an immigration attorney for the woman. Whitman said Niki lied to her for 9 yrs. had broken the law and she did what she felt was right. That was letting her go, not turning her into ICE, and not drawing attention to her.
For those saying she only fired her because she was running for office is wrong. She joined the race in Feb. and didn't fire her until June.
She hired a new maid from the same agency. She said the agency was not at fault and did everything possible to make sure their employees were legal. If the agency was fooled, how can anyone say Whitman should have been more thorough in checking her immigration status?
Also when asked if she would take a poligraph, there was no hesitation when she she would be more than willing.
Whitman came across very honest and made me think a lot more of her. I wasn't that impressed with her before. I hope stomps Jerry Brown.
 
tryreading said:
I didn't see this posted yet.

It is very possible Whitman did not know her personal employee was illegal, but the story may damage her campaign anyway.


Meg Whitman Refutes Allegations by Former Housekeeper - Video - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

If she knowingly hired an illegal and fired that illegal when when it became politically inconvenient then she pulled an Obama, of course unlike Obama the media hates anyone who is anti-illegal immigration. Of course if she hired her through a legitimate agency then one would assume that they did all the checks they were supposed to do and that these claims made by her former housekeeper are nothing more than a pissed off former employee with a grudge trying to ruin her former employer.
 
Supposedly they received a letter about the housekeeper's possible illegality in 2003. The husband may or may not have actually written a note on that letter and given it to the housekeeper.

Lowellsun.com8

The problem with stories like this is that it doesn't even matter if they're true. People are reading these headlines now and that's what makes an impression. Even if retractions are later printed, they're buried on page 9e and nobody reads them anyway.
 
Deuce said:
Supposedly they received a letter about the housekeeper's possible illegality in 2003. The husband may or may not have actually written a note on that letter and given it to the housekeeper.

Lowellsun.com8
Click to expand...

Even that isn't really anything:

Whitman within law, immigration lawyers say


...


Completely true, which is of course what Allred was going for. One day after the story broke, SEIU put up a $5m spanish language ad buy to attack Whitman on it.
 

Wait...Whitman went through an agency to hire the the nanny. I would imagine the agency was responsible for the verification of her documents.
 
As far as I can tell, in this incident Whitman did nothing I disagree with, and several things I approve of.
 
jallman said:
Wait...Whitman went through an agency to hire the the nanny. I would imagine the agency was responsible for the verification of her documents.
Click to expand...

And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I don't think she much cared about the person's legal status as long as they provided cheap labor.
Click to expand...

yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor
 

Allred is an opportunistic parasite IMHO. that she is involved in this case proves that this is the work of leftwing schemers
 
Here's an idea - Let's get a long list of ALL Congress Persons and Senators and see who they have working as Nanny's Cooks, Gardeners, Housekeepers, Chauffers etc. Girl Friends,Boyfriends optional and get verification as to all these folks Legal status. It might be interesting.
 
jamesrage said:
And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.
Click to expand...

I think the agency did everything they could at the time. They obtained all required documents. If they had gone much further - keeping in mind that E-Verify was not yet available in California - I have little doubt they would have been acused of violating rights of the maid.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor
Click to expand...

23 an hour is what we pay our helpdesk technicians once they get 3 certifications. That's a pretty decent salary for a nanny, I think.
 
jallman said:
23 an hour is what we pay our helpdesk technicians once they get 3 certifications. That's a pretty decent salary for a nanny, I think.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly. that wasn't bad for someone graduating from a top 10 law school who went to a market other than NYC or LA or Boston in the mid 80s
 
jamesrage said:
And yet despite the agency not doing its job right the first time she went and hired another housekeeper through them.
Click to expand...

It wasn't necessarily the agency's fault either, even if the woman was illegal. If she had paperwork that looked authentic and the agency reported the documents properly on an I9 form, that's all they were required to do.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
yeah that is why she was paying the woman 23 an hour. sounds rather dear for manual housekeeping labor
Click to expand...

Then again Whitman is a billionaire.
 
Hatuey said:
Then again Whitman is a billionaire.
Click to expand...

so what-she paid what appears to be a generous wage. YOu think Jerry Brown's hurting for bucks
 
To be precise, you quoted incorrectly. That statement is not conclusively known to have been made by Whitman, it was only claimed by the maid to have been made to the maid by Whitman. Mwahahaha, isn't the english language fun?

The relavant piece from the story you linked:
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
so what-she paid what appears to be a generous wage.
Click to expand...

Spoken like one more person who obviously doesn't live in expensive-ass California. What is generous about paying more or less what it would cost to have a 24 hour daycare that also cooks and cleans, your house?
 
Hatuey said:
Spoken like one more person who obviously doesn't live in expensive-ass California. What is generous about paying more or less what it would cost to have a 24 hour daycare that also cooks and cleans, your house?
Click to expand...

yawn-23 bucks an hour is hardly pauper wages and its expensive because of all the liberal bs out there
 
TurtleDude said:
yawn-23 bucks an hour is hardly pauper wages and its expensive because of all the liberal bs out there
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. answer the question. What is so generous about paying $23 an hour in California? You act like Whitman was some sort of patron saint. She's a billionaire who was paying what is essentially the bare minimum for somebody who cooks, cleans and takes care of your kids. End of story. Thanks for playing.
 

my point is that there is nothing that the moonbats can use against Whitman validly on this issue
 

That's a pretty generous wage for a menial laborer. Like I said, skilled technicians get paid that here in LA. And I am perfectly comfortable with paying them that salary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…