The labor bill was not marketed well

I like Cinta Kaipat a lot for all the reasons I described here. I don't agree with her on everything. She did a lousy job convincing the public this bill was helpful, and from what I read of it, it sure doesn't look helpful. I pay attention to local politics pretty closely and the first time I heard about this bill was when Zaldy Dandan tore it to shreds. She, and others, should have been out in front getting her message out before the business community and the opinion makers tore it a new one. She should have gone on Harry's show early on, and she should have convinced the chamber. She didn't. They balked. She staked her re-election on this bill, and it damaged her reputation as a progressive. Worse, it didn't get her re-elected and may have actually damaged her chances -- plus this bill is 1/3 of the way to being bye bye already.

It pains me to see this attributed to her in her final days in office: "The principal sponsor of the bill that is now Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007 says foreign workers who can’t stand the local labor system can leave." I asked her about it, and she says it is inaccurate and she was misquoted. It wasn't a direct quote, so the author might not have captured the meaning quite as she intended. She is putting together a statement, and I will include that here when it is completed. She has long claimed to have her differences with the Variety, and that story was principally her reaction to media coverage of the bill, which has long been critical.

I can understand where Cinta is coming from right now on an empathy standpoint. She takes her integrity very seriously. Thousands of people were out protesting her signature legislation. Her bill has been attacked vociferously. The business community doesn't like it, the guest workers don't like it, and the locals seem mostly indifferent. If it was designed to ward off the feds, it doesn't seem to be working. It also doesn't address the biggest issue: low private sector wages.

Zaldy captured this point and made another good one in his Friday column. "My main argument, however, against the local labor law’s latest, well, reincarnation is its proponents’ claim that it will “allow” more locals to get private sector jobs. As if “loopholes” in the law were the reasons why a local family man doesn’t want to work eight hours a day for $3.55 an hour. Private sector jobs require actual work for low pay. In contrast, CNMI government jobs mean way higher pay with little or no work required. I guess what I’m saying is that the proponents of the new labor law should just come out and say that it’s not really about the “economy” and “self-government,” but about their desire to return to those simpler, guest-worker-free days. It’s more honest and, for me, perfectly understandable."