In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Some mildly good news

… so it turns out that U.S. employers are not going to be forced to fire millions of employees. The Department of Homeland Security is trying to crack down on anyone whose records don’t match up properly, which is like firing a shotgun into a crowd because you think there might be a bad bad man hiding somewhere in there. Who cares if some other misfits and collaborators get hit? Oh wait, that’s standard operating procedure for our government already, isn’t it? From the National Center for Transgender Equality:

The DHS rules would have required employers to either fire employees or face stiff penalties when employee records do not match information in the Social Security Administration (SSA) database, such as name, Social Security number, or gender. Transgender employees who are listed as one gender in SSA records, but who live and work in another gender, would have been one of the groups at greater risk of losing their jobs as a result of the DHS enforcement procedures.

Of course, the DHS is not actively trying to get trans people fired; they couldn’t care less about trans people. They’re going after immigrants who are working with false or fudged records. Trans people are just collateral damage. Still, with so many trans people out there unable to change their “official” gender because of absurdly strict federal policies, it makes sense that NCTE and other trans groups signed onto efforts led by immigration and labor groups to stop this madness. Forcing employers to fire people? Last month, a judge agreed with the concerns brought up in the lawsuit against these rules, and now the DHS is retreating to come up with new policies that they hope will stand up better under legal scrutiny. Let’s hope that doesn’t mean some end-run that allows them to require firing or fines, but I’m sure that’s their intention.

This saga, along with other stuff around the federal “Real ID” and other broad-crackdown measures following the lead of the PATRIOT Act, is a really good example of why we all need to band together to fight against increasingly totalitarian “security” restrictions. It’s not just intersectionality, although there are definitely a ton of trans immigrants out there, for instance, who have a doubly difficult time making their way through the system. It’s that the jackbooted “security sweeps,” even if they’re just bureaucratic maneuvering and fines at this point, are squarely aimed at anyone whose papers aren’t in order. At any sign of unorthodox activities or behavior. That’s a shotgun firing at a whole lot of us.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that these new harsher rules were blocked, the Social Security Administration still has a policy of sending out “no match” letters to employers when there’s some mismatch between federal government records and an employee database. I’m not sure what the regulations are around how large an employer must be before having to submit employee records (is it all employers who file W-4s?) — and I’m one of the lucky few who has all of my records in matching order. But this is the kind of thing that keeps many immigrants, along with trans people and others, working in the cash economy. A letter to an employer can out a trans person when details of their gender are not relevant to their job at all, and some employers think it’s completely fine to just fire a trans person for this kind of mismatch. Other trans people have had their drivers’ licenses revoked due to this kind of federal-overmind “make sure nothing fishy’s going on” procedure.


10 thoughts on Some mildly good news

  1. I’d be one of those mismatch people. I changed my name when I got married, but I am continuing to work under my maiden name, since I’m already published under that name. So I didn’t bother to change my work records. Which also means my medical insurance policy is in my maiden name. I’ve been starting to wonder if I’m risking a major fuckup if I get hurt and a hospital decides they don’t like that my drivers license says “Smith Jones” but my insurance just says “Smith”.

    Also, tightening security measures in government contract jobs is getting silly. A friend of mine is half Swiss, and had a job with security clearance requirements, they tightened up the restrictions to the point that he was supposed to report every contact with a non-US citizen, which would mean his Mum, his roommates, a bunch of his friends from university (including me)… Is someone in that job supposed to check if everyone who serves them in a store or restaurant is foreign? What if you buy a coffee from a recent arrival from Brazil and don’t report it? Ridiculous! He left the field, went to work at a university.

  2. That was my thought too—every woman who had ever changed her name through marriage would be caught up. I married at 19, changed my name, got divorced six years later, and reverted to my birth name. I was told by my lawyer that it was perfectly legal to do this without having to have a separate legal procedure for a formal name change.

    At the Social Security office it was a different story—they wouldn’t accept my “new” name (translation: my original name). I was told I would have to have a court order to revert to my birth name. Again, I consulted with the lawyer who handled my divorce; she said the SS office was mistaken. So, I just went on, using my real name. Every now and then, I have to break out the divorce papers and birth certificate, to explain my “mismatch”; a mismatch that results from sexism (and racism, as my physical appearance and last name read as Latina—I figured that was the real reason I had a “mismatch” more often than Anglo women with the same name-change issue).

  3. The Social Security database has so many errors. For some reason, they don’t have my adoption information. Fortunately my mom didn’t change my name so it’s only been an issue when I tried to get a new card and they needed my birth parents names (and fortunately I knew that) but I can’t imagine how many other adopted people have problems with SS.

    This law sucks. If they want to stop illegal hiring, they should start with the companies that don’t pay minimum wage and don’t have workers’ compensation because they know the immigrants they hire can’t demand better. Stick it to the immoral corporations, not innocent individuals.

  4. This week, my 87-year-old mother got put through the bureaucratic wringer when she tried to get a replacement for her lost drivers license. It seems her SS record had the wrong year of birth. When she tried to correct it, she ran smack up against the “Impossible–we don’t make mistakes” mentality. To make a long (LOOOOOONG) story short, she and my sister had to visit four offices over three days to get it straightened out.

    The thought of masses of innocent people having their jobs at the mercy of these people is frightening.

  5. I did the same as well. Never changed my SSN to my married name. Also for some reason, the SS office had me listed as an alien, not a citizen, because I was born in Japan. I was born to American parents in an Air Force hospital, thus am automatically American. The SS missed that part. How, I’m not sure.

    I believe my parents tried to straight out the alien issue when I was younger, but apparently the SS lost the paperwork, didn’t receive it, who the hell knows. I never bothered fixing any of it for 27 years.

    But recently, I fixed both of the above as I was told that it would seriously affect receiving SS if it wasn’t straightened out when I reached the age for getting SS.

  6. And I have enough trouble with the IRS holding onto my tax returns every single year because social security insists that my card is in my birth name and new name at the same time.

    They always pay eventually, but not after sending me a hand-wringing letter saying that social security says my card is in someone else’s name.

  7. I decided a while back that it’s just not worth the effort to change my name when I get married. I had no idea that you had to change legal records (think high school), and when I found out, I was like oh HELL NO. Plus, I want to get my PhD, and I don’t want both my husband and myself to both be Dr. _______.

    Yeah…….I’m just psychotic enough to have planned out whether or not my future unknown husband will have his M.D./PhD. *snickers*

  8. I didn’t change my name out of a combination of laziness and ethnic (Italian) pride, but I certainly heard some horror stories. One woman was told by the Social Security Office that she was not allowed to keep her maiden name as her middle name because of “security reasons.” She eventually went back on a different day to a different clerk who didn’t say boo to her request and did what she wanted.

    I saw an article a few months ago by a woman who was moaning and complaining that the strict Colorado laws that she had voted for meant that she had to show both her birth certificate and her marriage certificate to prove she was really herself when she went to renew her driver’s license. Because, of course, those laws were supposed to apply to other people, not to her!

  9. When she tried to correct it, she ran smack up against the “Impossible–we don’t make mistakes” mentality.

    Yep, I’ve encountered that mentality a lot in large bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors when I needed to sort something out. There seems to be something about bureaucratic administration jobs that seem to attract folks who are particularly intolerant of admitting they/their institution messed up…even when the evidence is right in front of them. Whether it is dealing with erroneous tuition bills with unrequested services being billed or medical insurance companies attempting to deny medical procedures that were clearly covered under their contracts…it is the same old story.

    If they cannot even get this right, why add regulations that would compound this bureaucratic arrogance and ineptitude?

  10. I don’t think this was ever meant to be implemented. The Bush administration has dragged its feet on anything that would slow illegal immigration. Having an unworkable proposition is a good way to tell their constituents “we tried”.

Comments are currently closed.