House panel holds off vote on worker-eligibility bill

A House committee wants to see clarifications made to a bill thatrequires companies that do business with the state of Utah toparticipate in a federal program to verify the work eligibility ofnew hires.

The House Business and Labor Committee opted not to vote on HB127Thursday after concerns were raised that it could require companiesthat contract with the state to also regulate subcontractors.

"I would like to see some definitive language that clarifiesthis," said Rep. Michael Morley, R-Spanish Fork. "Sometimes thestate can be more reaching than to whoever signed the contract. Thegeneral contractor is held responsible for all the subcontracts."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said heplanned to work on the clarification and bring the bill back to thecommittee.

It's one of of two bills pending that would require participationin the federal employment verification program. The other, HB156,sponsored by Rep. Glenn Donnelson, R-North Ogden, would require allUtah companies participate. That bill has yet to see a hearing.

On Thursday, Sanstrom told committee members that HB127 is"mainly to try and alleviate the growing problem of identity theftin our state."

The bill was amended to require companies that receive more than$25,000 in state funds to participated in the federal Basic Pilotprogram, which is currently an optional Internet-based employmentverification system.

Participating employers enter into an agreement with theDepartment of Homeland Security to provide information on I-9employment eligibility forms. If the information doesn't match, thenew hires must get the discrepancy cleared up or be terminated.

"It is not an onerous program," Sandstrom said. "You can veryeasily join the program. ... My firm has joined."

However, pointing to the December enforcement action at Swift &Co. plant in Hyrum, Rep. Ben Ferry, R-Corinne, questioned whetherrequiring participation in the federal program would exposeemployers to "get wrung through the wringer."

Ferry was referring the Dec. 12 arrest of 1,282 workers at Swiftplants in Utah and five other states. He brought up claims by thecompany, which participates in Basic Pilot, that the enforcementaction could cost it up to $30 million.

Roger Tsai, an immigration attorney for Parsons Behle & Latimer,said participating in Basic Pilot doesn't protect companies fromimmigration raids, but it does protect against criminal and civilpenalties. He said Basic Pilot only detects when information doesn'tmatch. It doesn't protect against cases such as Swift, where entireidentities were stolen.

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com