Online I-9 Verification, a.k.a. SAVE (Your Time) Pilot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!

Attention FORUM:

After careful consideration I decided to give this SAVE PILOT program a try. Originally I said I would not unless it became mandatory. Well, thanks to the wise guidance from PORK1 who was kind enough to guide me, OVER THE PHONE, on how to proceed, I was able to get everything done, MOU signature page faxed, tutorial taken, MASTERY ACHIEVED!

Now, it is with great disappointment that I report to the Forum that the system is flawed, does not pass muster and I doubt that I will continue to use it. Allow me to tell you why:

-Too much data entry. Potential for a lot of time-consuming "resolution" and "CASE CLOSED" steps should you not get an immediate "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED".

Most importantly, however, I conducted my own test using the information of a known undocumented employee whom I had to terminate upon finding out he was using an assumed identity.

Here are the results of my test:

Known facts:

-Employee used the name, gender, DOB and SSN of a US citizen.

-He got a false I-551 (great fake with holograms and all that jazz), with the above info, HIS picture and with a bogus, randomly made-up A#.

Steps taken:

-I entered the individual into the SAVE system.

Results:

-EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED.

Nice try, US GOVERNMENT, but it's back to the drawing board. I will cancel my participation in the PILOT SAVE YOUR TIME program.

Gene
«1

Comments

  • 49 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Gene, I would suggest you send this one on to Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes - that'll bring a swift end to a flawed program.

    Thanks for trying it out before I wasted my time.
  • I am simply amazed that a man of your obvious intellect, talent and unbridled energy had the desire, patience or time to even F*** around with this government stupidity. I hope, in fairness to your employer, that you took a half-day of vacation while you did this. If the U.S. government is piloting this project on a hog farm in rural Mississippi I think I have my conclusion.
  • Yes, I admit that I got a little excited at the thought of having an effective system available. Unfortunately, this thing still has a lot of work left.

    Since pORK appears to be the national pilot person for this and he's been on top of it from day one, perhaps he can exert some influence on Washington to move this forward.

    Gene
  • Gene: Sorry to read your (1) and first test was a failure. I believe the MOU told you that you could not go back nor test someone, who was not recently employed (within 3 days). Those parameters may have something to do with your failure to receive a non-confirmed response. I can understand the confirmed on the SSA, if used with a picture ID or a driver's license or state pictured ID. However, to test the system with a US Citizen information and a foreign national required "Work Permit with an A-number" is strange. If I was a terrorist, I would do the same thing.

    Based on your previous stand on this subject with "confirmed documentation to employ" and authorized to continue the hiring situation and full incorporation of the "foreign national" into your company you would be out beating the bushes to bring that "employee back to the time card". Just maybe your first identification of an illegal alien was incorrect!

    Don: OH GREAT ONE AND KNOW IT ALL!!! Your post is totally un-necessary; you have found another opportunity to pat yourself on the back, at my expense and to lamblast our government's actions to do something good. I remain confident that the SAVE program will work for future real test of appropriate data. I will be doing my first one in a few minutes and I will come back to report the outcome.

    It will remain a Blessed day for us all inspite of those with "black & blue hearts".

    PORK
  • No, Pork, the parameters you speak of had absolutely nothing to do with it. I have since ran several iterations of the same test and my original conclusion has been proven true time again.

    The MOU's instructions on not going back and testing previously hired people has nothing to do with the accuracy, but rather it is based on law. You simply cannot re-verify people whom you have already verified and accepted.

    I also disagree with your conclusion that perhaps the illegal employee was not really illegal at all and I should get him back on the clock. The only problem with that theory is that he is currently in a DHA regional detention facility awaiting deportation proceedings.

    I know this is an emotional deal for you. I understand how attached you are to this. I am also aware of your selfless service and devotion to this pilot program since inception. However, I hate to be the one who breaks the news to you, but my original assessment stands. The system is flawed, it is unreliable and anyone who uses it needs to be aware of these facts. The most you will ever get out of this is a false sense of security.

    Gene
  • FORUM MEMBERS FOR INFORMATION & TNHR FOR HELP:

    The help line is 1-888-464-4218, you probably should be calling them to determine where you problem is! You are registering an inquiry with each action and you are posting proof of your "failed actions" and you should find out why, before they come asking you why you are testing the system with persons you are not hiring. The case verification number for my first case is: 2005133100611ZV. Do you have one for your first trial, and one for each of your additional trials from which you write your damning "post" about this failed US Government System?

    If I did not know better, you are speaking/writing out against our government's programs that are wired to fix a major immigration issue. You are out here, open and clear, across our nation with negative garbage to whom ever from CA to Maine to FLA to MS. What gives???

    I appreciated your telephone call this morning, I'm sorry I gave you the ability to put the rope around your neck while you leaped into the unknown. I should have realized that your's was the call of evil, just looking for a place to again stick PORK with more than a knife and a fork.

    How serious does the government take their programs? It is pretty serious when the Project Manager for the SSA comes to a little farming company in Mississippi to check on our use of the system and questions everyone of the entries. Never was I so shocked that they asked me for the hiring action of the one employee that was not ours, I had none. I came clean and told them what I had done to help a fellow HR, I never dreamed, that out of a record of several hundred that this one record would come up for question. Isn't it amazing how "wrong does not make a right". I have never again processed an inquiry of anyone with whom we have not had a direct effort on going to hire. I will do the same with this program.

    It is pretty serious when I write the President of these United States, the two Senators of our state and my House of Presentative, the Governor of Mississippi and the Project Manager for SSA to let them know of the greatness of the SSA program and how it should be tied to the INS inorder to properly verify the work permits/SSN/Names, etc. of people on our soil. I don't take credit for that but here it is.

    Yes, to all of your thoughts of my involvement in our government's actions to fix a major immigration and employment issue. I am a professional HR with my feet on the ground of this issue and I want it to come out for the betterment of all HRs, even "you and Don", for you represent an employer just like me and hundreds of US Citizen's employed and unemployed, who need a job.

    The fix is coming and we are right on the edge of it and you should best clear away for fear the sharp edge might get alittle to close. A quick resignation from the MOU is properly a good decision on your part. Your company can then rejoin the MOU, when required to do so. You can then tell you senior leadership of your bad experiences with this effort and ask that they appoint a new company administrator.

    It remains a Blessed day for me! I feel very satisfied with my accomplishments. Everyone have a nice weekend.

    PORK




  • It is sad, indeed, pOrK that you have to be such a malcontent and so wretched. My call to you, if you will refer to my original post up top, was not the "call of evil" or "made to hang a rope around my neck". I have praised you and your efforts. I praised your guidance on the phone with me.

    I am sorry if you do not like the news I reported. I feel that I made an honest, sincere and reasonable effort to proceed with an open mind and try the system. I reported my findings. You call them "damning" of our government. Whatever.

    Bottom line, and I will say it one last time. The Basic SAVE Pilot is flawed. Seriuosly so. Your lobbying efforts are commendable, however, they mean nothing to me if the system which they helped create is worthless.

    Gene
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-14-05 AT 00:09AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I'm still trying to figure out how I 'patted myself on the back' by criticizing this pilot project. On another thread, the suggestion was made to 'call your state or local INS office'. There is no such thing as a 'state or local INS office'.

    (edit) I can actually make no sense of any of PoRk's eight paragraphs above. None. But I wish him well with his presidential appointment. Is this a cabinet-level position?
  • DON: The content of your words and the post that you attach to any post are very evident of your need to discredit my thoughts and expertise with all words, thoughts, experiences. {Call your state or local INS office'. There is no such thing as a 'state or local INS office'} You know and everyone else knows, that I am writing about the federal offices located in one's state.

    "I wish him well with his presidential appointment', you know that is a "bold face lie", if I am right in the development of this SAVE PROGRAM and it is provided to you as a processing demand, you will have posted your negative action to this person and the SAVED program, YOU DO NOT WISH ME WELL, AND YOU KNOW IT!

    Why don't you just lighten up and sit on the side lines and watch me dig my self a grave from which you could then write "I told you so" instead of using your position of authority on ever subject ON THIS FORUM TO PUT OLE PORK AND YOUR GOVERNMENT DOWN. I have done alot of things well over the last 45 years, and I will once again do things right, as well, this time.

    HAVE A NICE DAY!

    Pork
  • TN HR: Ok, why did you not just report the facts of your findings. Sorry FORUM MEMBERS but the system did not work for me! Your words, when read by any other Forum member beyond Don would have read and thought, "well I'll just wait until Ole Pork has completed the necessary actions to test the system". I, too, am having some computer technical difficulties, but I am not ready to give the system a "failing grade". A computer expert I am not! A "dawg" at looking for the right game, I am.

    I am now waiting on the NON-CONFIRMED notice; this morning I received a tenative non-confirmed notice on my first case, a real live working employee in accordance with the MOU.

    I will up-date everyone when I do get the actual notice to the employee in my hand.

    PORK
  • "TN HR: Ok, why did you not just report the facts of your findings"

    That's exactly what I did, Pork. Notice that I kept the tone of my thread very neutral so as to not give the perception that I was somehow biased and set the system up to fail.

    I conducted my own experiment out of due dilligence and because I needed a certain comfort level with this system. I reported my findings. You don't like my findings because you choose to internalize this as a personal failure due to your lengthy and extensive involvement in the project.

    I wish you well in your continued trial and support of the system. I have made the decision not to continue until these flaws are corrected, if ever. Continuing to rely on a system which has failed an audit and validation process is, at best, irresponsible and probably borders on negligent.

    Today will be a good day, with or without the SAVE system because I ate PORK at all three meals yesterday!

    Gene
  • REPENT! ReAd LeViTiCuS.





















  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-16-05 AT 11:41AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Don, your comments are usually valuable -- even delivered in your customary arrogant, know-it-all style. However this insulting attitude you have taken with Pork over the last several months is undermining your credibility and making me wonder -- how old are you?

    Pork has valuable comments as well and I, for one, like to hear them. Please tone down the antagonism.
  • Hey SuperK, how's about activating your profile? This way I know a little about you.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm, 8 posts, relatively new to the Forum and already, "customary arrogant yada yada, yada. Are you serious?

    Before you jump into the fray, I would check some history. Take a week and catch up on the older posts. Then you may have an opinion.


  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-16-05 AT 02:08PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Superlaxative: Congratulations colleague. You have won a trip to the head of the line; the line formed by those who can kiss my Southern arse! It's a long one; but, you have top spot.
  • I've been hanging around for the past 3 years. I can't get on often and most questions are already answered by the time I see them, so haven't posted much.

    I just don't know why if you disagree with Don you must be subjected to the insults and name-calling. An employee who behaved like he does would be considered a problem employee, wouldn't he?
  • Friend: In your eighth post in three years you called me arrogant, know-it-all and remarked about my age. Now just who is it insulting whom and calling whom names? If you have a problem with the calibre or validity of a post of mine, please, by all means, post your objection. That's what I do often with your sudden friend, PoRk. That's no new methodology. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a post of mine. I do have a problem with posting totally off-the-mark advice and asking others to follow it and I also have a problem with a three year 'participant' who has virtually nothing to say beyond insulting me and commenting on breast feeding. Surely you have something more to contribute. Please join in, if so. And ignore all of my posts if you will. You'll chew fewer Rolaids that way. x:-)
  • Okay. I understand. Let me try again. Concerning your post in this thread, copied below,

    REPENT! ReAd LeViTiCuS.

    I object to the caliber of this post on the grounds that it is unhelpful.
  • Levitra? No thanks. Fortunately I don't have that problem yet.............................................Oh wait, you meant Leviticus, ok, I got you now. Well, according to pOrK I am the anti-christ, so I doubt I will be reading anything except the Black Book.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 07:21AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I have removed this post in the interest of being kinder and gentler. I forget that not everyone shares in my sick, twisted sense of humor. I will stop using the forum as an outlet for this.

    I awould also apologize to Superlative for getting too carried away with my post. Just because I may not like the message, I need to embrace it for what it is-dialogue.

    May everyone have a great day!

    Gene
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 06:19PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Superlative_KC, KS

    05-17-05, 06:14 AM (CST)
    8 total posts

    20. "RE: Online I-9 Verification, a.k.a. SAVE (Your Time) Pilot"
    Okay. I understand. Let me try again. Concerning your post in this thread, copied below,

    REPENT! ReAd LeViTiCuS.

    "I object to the caliber of this post on the grounds that it is unhelpful."

    DD's Reply:

    For the sake of clarification, and only for that reason, I will respond. Had you been paying attention the three years you've been in the bleachers or even the past three months, you would know that a post that is indented below and to the right of the one above it, is made in response to THAT post. My response, which you accurately quote above, was made to TN HR. For your benefit, Leviticus is the portion of the Bible where it is said that some animals should not be eaten. HRinNH originally brought this up some months ago and we have, with good humor and due respect to Leviticus, had some fun with that since then. Nothing harmful to anyone has ever been implied or meant by this. This had absolutely nothing to do with PoRk, but, was made in response to a lighthearted remark by Gene. You might do well to sheathe your horns until you have a good grip on your thoughts, otherwise, the result will always be the same.

    Again, if you find that I have offered unsound advice on the Forum or that my comments contradict labor law or good practice, please, weigh in and post your recommendation or opinion. But, don't waste your time with the silly notion of modifying my behavior. And if you can rest from your hurry-scurry busy HR duties for three minutes and reread this entire thread, you will find that it is the gentleman from Tennessee who has objected strongest to Mr. PoRk's 'advice'. x:-)

    (edit) Hmmm. First National Bank of Omaha, Nebraska. They have those in KC?
  • Don, I sincerely apologize. In a fit of pique (this was prior to taking Dr. Phil's advice) I resorted to the same accusatory, name-calling behavior to which I was objecting.

    I have great respect for your HR knowledge, wisdom and experience and I'm enriched because you share it. Thanks.
  • And I thought I was going to learn something about Online I-9 verification. Instead, I was subjected to the most ridiculous banter that was a total waste of my time. The fact that all of you use this forum for your own childish entertainment is quite disappointing to me. I would much prefer that those of you who participate in this manner do so somewhere else.
  • Or......you could try another site?????

    Please do not judge us so quickly.
  • Since I have no knot in this particular thread I'll wade in: I submit you did learn something. You learned that there is a substantial difference of opinion about whether the system works; you learned that our members care passionately about what they do; it is that passion that prompts them to question untested postulates and view with sceptism over- generalized statements of fact; it is precisely that passion for real world solutions and the fearlessness to question other members that results in valuable, and useful, information if only one is resolute enough to read through the chatter, and sometimes clutter to get to it. You can generally be sure that information presented here, or at least resolved here, has been well and appropriately tested by the resident sceptics with no motive whatsoever but to make it more accurate, and ultimately useful and reliable. Now, the way that gets accomplished may sometimes appear 'childish' or self gratifying and may not be the way you, or I, or someone else would address legitimate concerns. But stick around for awhile and I think you will be less 'disappointed'. Stick around for awhile and I know you will be better informed. Maybe then you will not be so quick to judge and lecture. And heck, if you still are not happy you can look for another less 'ridiculous' forum.
  • I have been around the forum for a while and I have learned a lot from it. I guess I could have been more explicit--I was referring to the Online I-9 verification postings and not the entire forum. It was a struggle to discern the important information from the personal barbs and witticisms. I realize that most of you who responded to this specific posting have ongoing relationships and your postings were really intended for each other and not general participants like myself. When there's that many postings on one thread, it usually indicates more emotion than information so I could just stay away from those.


  • And we can learn from you as well, and hope you will allow us too by participating. You are, of course right, that occasionally we (not I of course) shoot from the hip, spout from the lip, and generally make fools of ourselves - but without the ability to do so with some regularity - we might all be too guarded in our thoughts and responses to be really candid, leaving issues unprobed and results incomplete. It may have been Thoreau (if not someone will surely set me straight) who said (or a reasonably facsimile thereof): a friend is someone to whom I may think aloud. If we are willing to think aloud in the interests assisting one another, even to the extent of being 'ridiculous', then surely we are among friends.

  • You've made me feel special. And today I needed to feel special since it's root canal day for me. Not only do you find me a ridiculous waster of your time, but the last time you addressed me, I caused you to be appalled. Here's that one:

    karene, VT

    05-25-04, 01:47 PM (CST)
    10 total posts

    22. "RE: Prenatal visits"
    Don D-I'm appalled at your attitude about FMLA and employees' milking it for every hour they're entitled to.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    I suggest counseling or surgery, whichever will work to remove that terrible chip from your shoulder. It is obvious to me that you are unable to be in the sandbox with others. But, thank you for making me feel special. I have to go to the dentist's office now. x:-)
  • karene: I agree wholeheartedly with you!!!
  • I'm going to suggest, Karene, that you have now added your own riduculous banter to this thread thereby following in my footsteps and doing exactly what you are scolding us for.

    I hate this thread! Stop bumping it to the top and let it die.
Sign In or Register to comment.