Jose Millan

When Jose Millan was named California’s labor commissioner in July, he took over an agency plagued with problems. The department’s record of handling workers’ wage claims was dismal, and it faced criticism from leaders of various ethnic communities for neglecting the state’s growing class of immigrant workers. Low morale among the agency’s employees, who complained of a growing workload and fewer resources, was also an issue.

As the first Latino to hold the job in 50 years, union and business leaders alike welcomed Millan’s appointment. He had worked for 12 years at the agency and had built a reputation for fairness while handling some of its most important and high-profile investigations, including a 1995 raid that uncovered 72 Thai workers living in slave-like conditions in El Monte. But Millan left the agency in August 1996, citing his growing tensions with then acting Commissioner Roberta Mendoca.

A year later, Millan, 43, returned to take over the helm of the agency as it faces a series of challenges including growing tensions between labor and businesses that have companies threatening to leave the state. Over the past year, several major companies announced plans to move hundreds of jobs abroad. At the same time, unions are stepping up organizing drives among garment and agricultural workers in California, the majority of whom are immigrants.

A product of East Los Angeles, Millan earned his undergraduate degree at Pitzer College and a law degree from the University of Houston. A bachelor, he lives in Santa Cruz. Gov. Pete Wilson nominated him to succeed Mendoca, whose nomination was rejected. His appointment must still be confirmed by the state Legislature. Millan was recently in Los Angeles and sat down to talk about his agenda, the agency’s image problem and what he can do to repair the agency’s strained relations with its federal counterpart.

*

Question: You spent nearly 12 years with the agency when you announced your resignation last year as assistant state labor commissioner. Why did you leave and then return?

Answer: There were a number of reasons why I left. [Acting Commissioner] Roberta Mendoca didn’t have much confidence in me and I didn’t feel comfortable working with her. And rather than have the staff torn apart with loyalties, since she was the appointee and I wasn’t, I left. I thought it was best that I leave the agency rather than have a blood bath.

Q: So what is your top priority now that you have returned to be commissioner?

A: My utmost priority is to improve access of communities in California that have never had access to government services, certainly not services that my agency has to offer. That’s why I want to make outreach efforts to the Thai community in the garment industry. I want to make outreach efforts to the day-laborer community in private construction. I want to go after the restaurants that underpay the restaurant workers. I want to bring the law to the people. And we also aren’t doing a good enough job of doing outreach to the employer community, which, in certain industries like garment, is predominantly Asian and predominantly immigrant. So that’s why I’m embarking on a very ambitious educational outreach campaign to all the ethnic communities in the state.

Q: How will you increase outreach in these ethnic communities where many immigrant workers may feel a reluctance to turn to the state for help, especially in the aftermath of Proposition 187?

A: By making an effort to go to events such as the new day-laborer site opening Sandra Hernandez is a staff writer at the L.A. Weekly. She interviewed the commissioner at his office in the state building in downtown Los Angeles.

in Hollywood. It’s really through establishing partnerships with local city councils and organizations, such as Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg’s office, and groups, such as the Institute of Popular Education, that we can hope to reach immigrants, laborers who work in our fields, who work on the roadways, who work in private construction and restaurants and so forth. We want to be able to work with groups like the institute to set up seminars for these employees to inform them of their rights, to give them the access to our services to report violations. And, in so doing, we will be forging a bridge to the rest of that community . . . . State law, as I’ve said on many occasions, applies to all workers who work in the state regardless of their immigration status.

Q: Recent news articles revealed the department has a dismal record of processing wage complaints filed by immigrant workers. Why is the agency so slow?

A: That has been a problem. There are some things I cannot do anything about. The due-process time comes under the heading of that which I can’t do anything about. By law, these cases can be handled in up to 90 days. What I can do, and have done, is I have told staff that it is indefensible to have a claim linger more than 90 days. They have my absolute support to move and have the hearings held in a 90-day period. That should be the norm. If it isn’t, I’ll start disciplinary action against them. There are certain standards that shouldn’t be whittled away. I am particularly sensitive to immigrants who have to move on and can’t wait and keep coming in. That’s why we’ve made changes to accommodate them. They can now participate in hearings telephonically. I’ve also reopened the Los Angeles office of wage claims, so people no longer have to go to the Van Nuys office.

Q: In the last few years, your agency has uncovered incidents of severe violations--such as the Thai workers in El Monte. Those cases focused public attention on the plight of many immigrant workers in industries historically plagued by problems, such as the garment industry. These raids, however, also raised questions about the effectiveness of the state’s monitoring programs. Should the state be doing more?

A: If people are critical of our efforts in enforcement in the garment industry, I would hope they would let me know in what ways I’m falling short in enforcement efforts. Everyone knows that California has the largest number of investigators focused on the garment industry in the country. The New York Department of Labor has probably 60 investigators that deal with all other industries, including garment. And they’ve identified garment as being a high-priority item. I have 35 investigators, and they are dedicated to the garment-manufacturing industry.

Q: You have been critical of the Department of Labor’s monitoring program that allows garment manufacturers to hire a private company to monitor contractors and ensure they are following the law. That created a lot of tension between the two agencies. Now you are heading the state agency. Will that continue to be a problem?

A: We had a discussion with them after my appointment. A very frank discussion, in which I said I will not be publicly critical of them, and I’ve kept to that. I’ve stated on a number of occasions the problems I have with their monitoring programs, and it has, in part, to do with the lack of uniform standards used by companies that do monitoring of garment contracting shops. But, quite frankly, I don’t think the monitoring issue is as big a problem as it was last year. They [DOL] are convinced monitoring companies do better in compliance than do non-monitoring companies. And there is no way I or anyone else can convince them their assumption is incorrect.

Q: There is a growing tension between labor and business. In the past year, several companies announced plans to move abroad, where labor costs are lower. They say the cost of doing business in the state is too high and labor laws confusing. What is the state doing to keep businesses while protecting the rights of workers?

A: That is a high-wire act. I’m mandated to create a level playing field among employers. We do that through licenses and we do it by concentrating our enforcement efforts on employers who violate the law. We don’t want these employers who don’t follow the law to have a competitive advantage over companies that comply. In doing that, we can provide an amenable work environment for employers so they will want to stay in California as opposed to going overseas or out of state. The governor has a red-tag team that goes after employers who want to go out of state. But, what it comes down to is economics. If it makes more sense and it’s going to reduce their operating costs, there is nothing anyone can do, state, federal or anyone.

Q: Some critics have accused the agency of going easy on businesses that threaten to leave. They say the department isn’t going after big companies, such as Guess? and others. How would you respond?

A: That’s a bogus charge. One of the biggest cases we were involved with was California Connection Inc., an Orange County garment maker. We investigated them. We found them in violation of the law. We assessed them penalties and they left for Mexico for reasons that are totally separate and apart. I have a problem with any employer that threatens to leave the state and then wants us to overlook their violations. These are the minimum costs of doing business in the state. And they have a choice of passing that cost on to the customer. If we don’t do that, then we’re making exceptions for companies that threaten to leave the state and that certainly is not my intent nor, do I believe, the governor’s intent.

Q: You helped launch the Targeted Industries Partnership Program (TIPP). It focused state and federal resources on weeding out employers in the apparel and agriculture industries who broke the law. Organized labor leaders say more needs to be done in those industries, calling for tougher laws. Do you agree?

A: If it was just a matter of stricter laws I’d be in favor. But as you see now, we have very tough health and safety laws that cover every employment situation but people still die. It’s not a question of tougher laws or more laws . . . . We can help through tougher enforcement, but when it gets right down to it, it’s going to have to be the industry that shakes that image. The government’s role should be one of facilitating this and living up to our responsibility to adequately enforce the law. I don’t mean having an inspector at every employer’s door. You need an adequate enforcement policy to ensure that violators are dealt with quickly.

Q: Construction of the Metro Rail has been riddled with problems. There have been repeated safety violations and several workers injured or killed. What is your office doing about problems in the construction industry?

A: The problem there is similar to garment manufacturers. You have local awarding bodies who let out contracts, often multimillion-dollar contracts, for the building of a library, a bridge or road. And it’s always the lowest bidder that gets the contract. And when times are lean, people look to cut corners. The awarding body is just concerned with getting the lowest bidder without taking into consideration the responsibility or track record of that contractor on that project. That’s why you have the requirement in the law that projects should be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

We are enforcing the laws that are written. And until somebody can come up with a law that outlines what is meant by a responsible bidder, we won’t have a situation that is any better than it is today. I don’t make the law. You have to play the hand that is dealt you. There have been a number of deaths and violations, egregious violations and it will continue because you will have more public-works projects, like Metro Rail, that will invite people to bid who perhaps shouldn’t get the bid.

Q: You’ve said you want to expand the TIPP program to other areas. What other industries and when will you begin this?

A: I’ve said I want to expand the program to include construction and restaurants. We started this month doing outreach to get employers in compliance. My target date to begin enforcement is March.

For construction, we’re doing outreach in a different way. We’re working with cities, such as Los Angeles, and their day-laborer sites. Once these centers begin to bring in private construction workers, we’ll meet with them and tell them their rights. We’ll count on them to be our complainants, like we do in the other program.