Editor's Pick
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 9:28PM
Rate: 18
on the estate (did she fire the dog walker?)
Does it surprise anyone that Whitman would have undocumented workers toiling for lousy pay on her estate in Atherton? Long before she was Candidate Whitman, she was citizen Whitman, and a busy one at that. It would be a rare thing in that zip code for a household to not have undocumented (and documented) workers toiling away as housekeepers, nannies or yard help.
A little perspective might help since Silly Silicon Valley is a slightly different colored bubble than the rest of the universe. The average (bell curve average) income in that zip code tops $240,000. The average (!) home price is $3.92M. When you think of Atherton, think of CEO-ville, Venture Capital-cove, and old wealth. Atherton is an enclave nearby Stanford University that is well protected from peering eyeballs by high stone walls, huge foliage and lots of private security. Nannies and housekeepers drive a Range Rover kept for that purpose.
There are a ton of workers, documented and not toiling away in Atherton providing everything from housekeeping to mow, blow and go (that would lawn service) to shopping and nanny services. And just because that zip code is supremely wealthy, it does not mean they pay the best wages either.
If any papers were traded, and if (a big if) Ms. Whitman was paying payroll taxes including social security for this person, she would have known very early on that those papers were fake. Even though we all know the IRS is slow, after half a decade you'd think they'd say something about it. But nine years? A more common practice is that the housekeeper, along with other household help were paid regularly with a check or cash - straight up for the hours without any payroll taxes removed.
If, as has been stated by the Whitman campaign, that the housekeeper came from an agency, then most agencies or companies that provide housekeeping services require that you pay the agency and not the individual. The agency or company pays the employees directly. If Whitman were to have gotten an employee from an agency, most provide extensive background checks and bonding, especially if they are sending employees to homes of very wealthy people (hello: security). Something just does not add up.
There is truth to this matter somewhere in the facts presented by both sides, and undoubtedly it is rather simple. However, the claims by the Whitman campaign so far are not making much sense. But then again, having Gloria Allard as your mouthpiece tends to make things a little more sensational than they are.
It would, however, be surprising if Whitman had NOT employed anyone who had questionable immigration status as a worker in her home at some point in time. The problem is more on the end where citizen Whitman became Candidate Whitman without a thought to how her past might factor into a public service job.
All along Whitman has seen the CA Governorship as an extension of being a corporate CEO and still has no idea that past practices matter - like a voting record, or hiring household help. It would be fair to say that Meg Whitman's housekeeper-gate will not be the only problem in her past that comes back to bite.
In fact, taken together, the growing list speaks to that attitude of arrogance: Goldman Sachs, her lack of understanding basic civics and the CA Constitution, the old absent voting record, and her waffling on immigration and green, and now housekeeper/nanny-gate.
Meg Whitman doesn't even understand immigration - she has waffled continually on immigration status and immigration reform from the beginning. From the Daily Kos on the 9/28 Brown-Whitman debate:
"Whitman Says She Is Unfamiliar With Illegal Immigration Terminology
[Whitman] has struggled to explain her past and current positions on the issue. She said...her lack of familiarity with the issue and her newness to politics had caused the misunderstanding. ‘When you’re new to politics, sometimes you use words that have like a meaning to people who have been in politics for 20 years,’ she explained." [The Washington Post, 5/31/10]"
Housekeeper-gate will ebb into the news abyss as have the other issues, but in the end the combination of all these troubling factors might be the difference between Meg being just Candidate Whitman rather than Governor Whitman come November 2.
One can hope that voters are paying close attention.
Comments
I'm paying attention. But she is the darling of the Republicans. They will help her sweep this under the rug. I'm voting for Brown and I bet he would not employ an illegal. It makes Whitman seem so naive and out of touch.
I've always wondered how candidates can think that their Citizen behavior won't catch up with them when they become Candidates. (Thanks for clarifying the "blow and go"!)
Hubris, arrogance and entitlement . If you lived through the 90's and saw what happened to a couple of Clinton nominees, you would have learned what to do, and what to not do. Not Meg, she did not pay attention.
Her self admitted newness to politics should be more than enough to sink her ambitions. Ahundred million dollars for a campaign will buy a lot of bailing buckets, but she seems to keep drilling new holes in her boat.
I saw the headline about this on HuffPo this morning, and instead of reading about it there, decided to wait for you to post, because I knew you would not pass on this opportunity. Good job. I appreciate how you manage to locate pictures that look like Repub Christmas cards.
Whitman's poll numbers have been going downhill
and this new information will not help her candidacy.
and this new information will not help her candidacy.
When I lived in CA I had a nanny. Just like Whitman I got her through an agency who did, or claimed they did, back ground check, reference check and all the other needed paperwork. I also paid the agency and not the nanny. If anything was wrong the agency took care of it. When quarterly taxes were due the agency was responsible for paying them not us. That's the main reasons we used an agency instead of directly hiring someone.
Was she legal? I don't know. The agency said yes and because she was their employee, not mine, I didn't have access to her employment info.
Whitman's story adds up in my experience.
Was she legal? I don't know. The agency said yes and because she was their employee, not mine, I didn't have access to her employment info.
Whitman's story adds up in my experience.
Whoops, Meg!
I hope the voters are paying attention--this voter certainly is. Looks like Meg neither voted NOR paid much attention until she decided she deserved to be Governor.
I actually don't mind the money she's pumping into her campaign, as long as she wakes up on November third as the Not-Governor elect but Citizen Meg who is several million dollars poorer.
I hope the voters are paying attention--this voter certainly is. Looks like Meg neither voted NOR paid much attention until she decided she deserved to be Governor.
I actually don't mind the money she's pumping into her campaign, as long as she wakes up on November third as the Not-Governor elect but Citizen Meg who is several million dollars poorer.
her housekeeper might have saved this state from whitman....another instance of an undocumented worker contributing to the good of this country...
thank-you, Nicky Diaz for being brave enough to tell your story.
thank-you, Nicky Diaz for being brave enough to tell your story.
I'd like to think the voters are paying attention but most seem to put the same amount of attention into picking who to vote for as Whitman did in picking her household help.
I agree that citizen behavior doesn't always translate into ideal candidate past (regardless of party), and that Whitman deserves criticism if the facts warrant it (facts are still in dispute about who knew what and when).
What I don't agree with - the basic premise of "rich people from Atherton are bad."
What I don't agree with - the basic premise of "rich people from Atherton are bad."
I am with Ms. Vance. I am constantly amazed that candidates forget their skeletons.
I love you photo caption, by the way.
I love you photo caption, by the way.
Yep, except for one thing; twenty three bucks an hour ain't lousy pay, at least not on my end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
It's hard to say which is worse, her hypocrisy or people going around saying, "See, she's contributing to the problem." Like people are a "problem" that have to be "dealt with." A chilling beginning to any debate. One can guess where it all leads to without much effort (the "issue" being the invention of stupid people to begin with): Sarkozy's psychotic "Children of Men"-type France. This is hardly inevitable either, Meg or no Meg.
rated
rated
I think Diaz's story has far more credibility. I, too, live in California, and when my daughter was very young, I hired a babysitter through an agency. The agency checked papers and produced references for me to check myself. I paid a fee equal to 10% of the first year's salary. From that point onward, I was completely responsible for paying the employee myself, and I was responsible for all payroll withholding.
It sounds as though Diaz had purchased a fake social security card, which is easy enough, and it sounds as though it took SSA an eternity to get its act together and inform the Whitmans that the number did not match the name.
This is where Meg Whitman's story falls apart: you simply can't get a notice like that and NOT understand what the scam is. Look at the social security card, and see if you correctly entered the number. If you did ... the card is a fake. Your employee is undocumented.
My guess is, at this point, they simply decided to play dumb. For many American employers, the worst-case scenario might have been eventually getting caught -- by an inefficient, lumbering bureaucracy whose limited resources were being directed towards large-scale industrial employers -- and having to pay a fine.
Whitman is in a bind right now: she's clearly losing any Hispanic support she's been courting (and that would have been an uphill battle even under the best of circumstances). She's on record as railing against employers of undocumented workers. She's coming off as having coldly and heartlessly fired a loyal employee who had been with her for nine years. She's coming off as an equivocator (for claiming to have acted "promptly" and for claiming to have been "heartbroken") and as a liar (for pretending not to have received the letter).
Karma's a bitch.
It sounds as though Diaz had purchased a fake social security card, which is easy enough, and it sounds as though it took SSA an eternity to get its act together and inform the Whitmans that the number did not match the name.
This is where Meg Whitman's story falls apart: you simply can't get a notice like that and NOT understand what the scam is. Look at the social security card, and see if you correctly entered the number. If you did ... the card is a fake. Your employee is undocumented.
My guess is, at this point, they simply decided to play dumb. For many American employers, the worst-case scenario might have been eventually getting caught -- by an inefficient, lumbering bureaucracy whose limited resources were being directed towards large-scale industrial employers -- and having to pay a fine.
Whitman is in a bind right now: she's clearly losing any Hispanic support she's been courting (and that would have been an uphill battle even under the best of circumstances). She's on record as railing against employers of undocumented workers. She's coming off as having coldly and heartlessly fired a loyal employee who had been with her for nine years. She's coming off as an equivocator (for claiming to have acted "promptly" and for claiming to have been "heartbroken") and as a liar (for pretending not to have received the letter).
Karma's a bitch.
zanelle - she is the darling, but not after the election if she loses. Brown and family has been in public service for so long that if they did the same it would be way worse, but agreed: Whitman is out of touch.
Bell - yeah, me too. and would you believe, mow, blow, go is different from gardener & landscape crew...only in CA.
Stellaa - yeah, hubris covers it pretty much. she was sleeping through the 90's and wasn't voting...
Michael - you'd think so, but amazingly, it is working for some candidates...sigh.
green - I'm blushing, and thank you. I love that particular photo for many reasons, but it does look like a holiday card sans the children and hubby.
can - yeah, they are going in the wrong direction for a clear win,but it is still early and the margins of error make them neck/neck still.
Catn - perhaps. but not knowing is truly suspect after all that time - just a guess, but if Whitman's statement is true that the agency vetted the housekeeper, I would bet they've hired a law firm of their own by now...
Shiral - Stanford just opened a new health building that costs 90M. I can't help but think what $150M would build around here....sigh.
dolores - now that would be something!
Nelle - sadly, yes.
Sammis - I re-read to see if I said that and do not think I did. But if you got that impression, I apologize. Wasn't my point.
Kate - thank you!
nana - I heard that too, but not sure if it is true entirely. But even so, living around here, even in Union City, it barely gets one by. Average cost of housing and food, gas etc is higher here than most places.
Boko - a little unclear on your comment, but I think the reality is somewhere that both sides are nowhere near getting to. But Whitman keeps making stupid mistakes because of lack of experience and ability to actually understand public service v. being a corporate boss. She thinks they are the same.
Kathleen - yep, some agencies work that way too. but what amazes me is that Whitman assumed so many things that are ordinarily hot buttons in a campaign would not bother her candidacy because she was coming in as the CEO candidate and a repub/backlash against Obama-ville. She was stupid to think that people would be aghast at Goldman, the housekeeper, her lack of understanding the CA constitution, and her hubris in general (not to mention paying for her own campaign - Whitman for Whitman v. The People for Whitman). She could have used each one of these as a tool for showing how she did stuff and then saw the error of her way v. denying that it mattered, or saying she was not conversant in immigration etc. I Agree with everything you said.
Bell - yeah, me too. and would you believe, mow, blow, go is different from gardener & landscape crew...only in CA.
Stellaa - yeah, hubris covers it pretty much. she was sleeping through the 90's and wasn't voting...
Michael - you'd think so, but amazingly, it is working for some candidates...sigh.
green - I'm blushing, and thank you. I love that particular photo for many reasons, but it does look like a holiday card sans the children and hubby.
can - yeah, they are going in the wrong direction for a clear win,but it is still early and the margins of error make them neck/neck still.
Catn - perhaps. but not knowing is truly suspect after all that time - just a guess, but if Whitman's statement is true that the agency vetted the housekeeper, I would bet they've hired a law firm of their own by now...
Shiral - Stanford just opened a new health building that costs 90M. I can't help but think what $150M would build around here....sigh.
dolores - now that would be something!
Nelle - sadly, yes.
Sammis - I re-read to see if I said that and do not think I did. But if you got that impression, I apologize. Wasn't my point.
Kate - thank you!
nana - I heard that too, but not sure if it is true entirely. But even so, living around here, even in Union City, it barely gets one by. Average cost of housing and food, gas etc is higher here than most places.
Boko - a little unclear on your comment, but I think the reality is somewhere that both sides are nowhere near getting to. But Whitman keeps making stupid mistakes because of lack of experience and ability to actually understand public service v. being a corporate boss. She thinks they are the same.
Kathleen - yep, some agencies work that way too. but what amazes me is that Whitman assumed so many things that are ordinarily hot buttons in a campaign would not bother her candidacy because she was coming in as the CEO candidate and a repub/backlash against Obama-ville. She was stupid to think that people would be aghast at Goldman, the housekeeper, her lack of understanding the CA constitution, and her hubris in general (not to mention paying for her own campaign - Whitman for Whitman v. The People for Whitman). She could have used each one of these as a tool for showing how she did stuff and then saw the error of her way v. denying that it mattered, or saying she was not conversant in immigration etc. I Agree with everything you said.
No comments:
Post a Comment