ISSUE: What measures should be taken to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

DISCUSSION: With the issue of illegal immigration rising to the level of firebrand rhetoric at the national level, elected leaders are expected to provide a thoughtful solution. Two specific ideas which have been brought into the debate are: E-Verify and discretionary checks on immigration status. For the retail industry, both ideas have the potential to do harm if not correctly implemented.

E-Verify is a “free” web-based software program that verifies the employee’s eligibility to work in the United States. Using the employee’s Form I-9, the employer enters the required information into the E-Verify system. The system then checks the name and social security number of the employee to determine employment eligibility. Unfortunately, according to a report commissioned by and posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s own website, E-Verify is only 48% reliable. E-Verify is reliant on the presumption that illegal immigrants do not use stolen social security numbers in order to gain employment. However, identity theft is commonly practiced by the illegal immigrant population and there is no way for the employer to determine whether that has occurred. Additionally, E-Verify cannot legally be used for prescreening. Therefore, an employer may unintentionally hire, pay wages to, and pay taxes on an illegal immigrant. For those reasons, if the use of the E-Verify system is required of employers, there must be an affirmative defense provided to them for using it.

Like E-Verify, the allowance of discretionary checks of immigration status must have parameters. If law enforcement officials are given sweeping authority to run background checks during simple traffic stops, this could have a devastating impact on our tourist industry. Arizona, with the passage of its Senate Bill 1070, lost millions of dollars in canceled convention business. Florida’s economy simply cannot sustain such a loss. A more thoughtful approach would be to encourage law enforcement professionals to confirm a suspect’s immigration status when conducting criminal investigations.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation favors reasonable action to ensure all foreign born residents and tourists are legally in the state.

ISSUE: Should Florida ban surcharges on debit card transactions.

DISCUSSION: For many years, Florida has banned surcharges on credit card transactions, but not on debit cards. This allows a retailer to pass bank fees on debit card transactions on to the customer if necessary. In the 2010 Legislative Session, an effort was made to ban surcharges on debit card transactions. Federation members and the AIP team fought hard to defeat the ban and were ultimately successful. This mirrored an effort by retailers at the federal level to rein in excessive charges by banks. While no legislation involving debit card surcharges surfaced during the 2011 Legislative Session, the Federation needs to be vigilant and prepared to again fight any such legislation in the 2012 session.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation opposes any effort to statutorily mandate a ban on debit card surcharges.

ISSUE: Should the Legislature revise the way the Court System is funded in order to ensure it has adequate revenue to carry out its mission.

DISCUSSION: The Court Administrator has demonstrated that insufficient funding of the court system adversely impacts their ability to handle and resolve civil cases in a timely manner, disproportionately affecting Florida businesses. The State Courts Administrator, along with representatives of trial and appeals courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, have asked the business community for assistance in requesting that the court system be spared any proposed government spending cuts.

The work of the courts and clerks is inter-related, and each entity depends on the other to provide justice to the people. The two entities should be considered the Core Court System for funding purposes. Filing fees and service charges in the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal should not be directed into general revenue but into the courts’ trust fund, with all court related revenue being distributed to the courts and clerks in an amount sufficient to support their authorized budgets before distributions are made to other government programs and services. Additionally, there are certain court functions that are a requirement of state government: judges, court reporters, and interpreters. As such, their salaries should be paid from general revenue, not court user fees and costs. These proposals will enable the courts and clerks to have the funding necessary to support the budget authorized by the legislature.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation supports the implementation of a more stable funding mechanism for the State Court System.

ISSUE: Should employers be allowed to question job applicants about their criminal history.

DISCUSSION: Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is considering new guidelines that would prevent employers from asking potential employees about whether they have been convicted of a crime. Additionally, some cities and states have passed so called “Ban the Box” legislation, which forces employers to remove the criminal history conviction check box on application forms.

Supporters of eliminating questions on criminal history during the initial application phase say that this allows a person to have a “fair chance” at proving that they would be the one best able to perform the job. Removing the criminal history question from applications ensures that applicants won’t be automatically excluded because of any past mistakes they have made.

For retailers, the ability to keep this question on applications is a necessary tool for keeping our customers – and our inventory – safe.

POSITION: The Florida Retail Federation will oppose any proposed legislation that would prohibit prospective employers from using criminal history information in hiring decisions.