Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Immigration Debate; The Problems With Flex Time

Aired May 01, 2006 - 08:31   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, they're calling it the Day Without Immigrants. Thousands, perhaps upwards of a million, immigrants may choose not to go to work or school today, and instead, be rallying in the streets calling upon the government to reform immigration. But how just to do that? Lots of debate about it. Washington at loggerheads over the issue the moment. Joining us now to talk about some of the competing proposals, and how things are happening and being affected on the ground, from Santa Fe, New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson. And from Orlando, Florida Senator Mel Martinez.
Good to have you both with us, gentlemen.

Governor Richardson, let's begin with you. The protests today, the boycott of work and school, do you think this is the right thing for immigrants to be doing?

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Well, I have a mixed reaction. I'm a border state governor. I know the huge economic impact immigrants have in my state of New Mexico, but I do worry about kids not going to school. I worry also about the symbol of immigration is that these individuals come to America to work, yet they're not working.

At the same time, my view is that we have to focus on the main issue, and that is in the Congress, comprehensive immigration reform, which is border security, enhancing that dramatically. But also an earned legalization plan based on good behavior, learning English, paying taxes, background checks, that these 11 million people, that are very frustrated -- and I believe this is why they're demonstrating so much -- but the key should be I'd rather see the individuals, all these demonstrations going to congressional offices, pushing the Congress to act on immigration reform, which they've not done for a year, and the whole country waiting for them to act.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, they certainly have caught our attention, haven't they.

Senator Martinez, there's also a plan for immigrants not to spend any money today. Your thoughts on the protests and whether they will have that kind of -- the kind of impact that they suggest they might.

SEN. MEL MARTINEZ (R), FLORIDA: Well, I think the idea was to show the world, or show America, the economic impact of immigrants to this country, but I agree with Governor Richardson, in that the fact, the endearing quality, the thing that hear most often about this immigrant group of people is that they're hard workers, or they're here to work; they want to make a contribution. And boycotts is not the right way to go about it.

I agree with the governor, we need to buckle down in Washington and get to work. The immigration bill that we almost were able to get out of the Senate a week or so ago is going to come back in another week or so.

And my fervent hope is that the compromise that we cobbled together, which is a good idea. It enforces a border like the governor needs, like the country needs, but it also allows people who are here, who have obeyed the law, who will pay back taxes, and who will become Americans by learning English , and civics and citizenship, who do not have a criminal background, have an opportunity in time, going to the back of the line, to become citizens, and I think that's really the right way to go, the right way to fix it. It's not going to be fixed in the streets. We've got to get our work done in Congress.

M. O'BRIEN: Let's refresh people's minds about your proposal, the Hagel-Martinez measure, which is -- you're coauthor of. First item on the list, those who enter the U.S. after January 2004, most recent immigrants, would have to return to their country of origin. that's number one, and then they'd have to apply for citizenship or entry, or whatever the case may be.

MARTINEZ: For entry, yes.

M. O'BRIEN: Yes, then those in the U.S. two to five years would have to apply for temporary visas. They would have to travel to a point of entry across the U.S. border to do that, and then potentially come back in.

And then finally, it's kind of a three-tiered approach, those in the U.S. five years or more would be able to get down the path towards a legalized status and apply for citizenship without leaving.

Senator, what's the beauty in that proposal in your view?

MARTINEZ: Well, the beauty is that it had a support of 65 to 70 senators, and so that, I think, makes it wise in that respect as something we can get done.

M. O'BRIEN: So political reality is something to contend with?

MARTINEZ: Sure

M. O'BRIEN: Yes.

MARTINEZ: Sure, exactly. But in addition to that, it enforces the border. The first thing about it is that it continues the strong border enforcement ideas that were in all of the other bills, without the criminalizing effect of the Sensenbrenner bill, which I think is a very negative thing to do.

M. O'BRIEN: Just to remind viewers very quickly, the Sensenbrenner is the House bill, which would, in essence, make illegals in the country felons automatically. So go ahead, finish up. MARTINEZ: Correct.

And so it divides the immigrant group into subcategories. Those who came here subsequent to the time when the debate began should not get the benefit of having traveled here to enter into some sort of a program like this, so they don't have any benefits. But those who've been here more than five years, we recognize that in many instances they're family, that they're established in communities. Oftentimes they own a home, they're sending the kids to school. And those people, to disrupt their lives, returning them to the point of origin, really doesn't serve a good purpose. And so allowing them to remain here while still having to go through the same steps that the governor indicated, having to go to the back of the line to become citizens, but being able to remain here as legal workers during the time that they earn their citizenship. Those who've been here less than five or more than two years would simply have to reenter the country legally and be photographed, fingerprinted, et cetera at a point of entry.

All of these people now that are today in the shadows would be out of the shadows, and we would know who they are, where they are and what they're doing. That's a good thing for America's security, but it's also a good thing to uniting America as a country and not having a group of people that really are living outside of the American system and the opportunity to live the American dream.

M. O'BRIEN: All right, Governor Richardson, you don't support it. Why not?

RICHARDSON: Well, I believe that Senator Martinez has played a very constructive role in this debate, and he himself mentioned that he's trying to get a sensible plan passed. I believe his amendment is OK. It's good. But I preferred the McCain-Kennedy, which basically was cleaner. It said, over a process of about 11 years, you can get either citizenship or some kind of permanent status. With background check, learning English, having -- paying back taxes. A whole series of earned legalization measures, but you don't divide up two to five years, you just treat everybody equally.

And the only concern I have with the senator's proposal, and then, again, I commend him for his efforts, is that you're going to send a lot of people to the border, to El Paso, to reapply, and my worry is that's going to break up families. That's going to be, I think, creating within the 11 million a second-class citizens of a group of people that already are, and we want to bring them out of the shadows.

But I'm a realist. If that's the only measure that gets support because the Republicans in the house have this horrendous bill that you mentioned that makes felons out of these 11 million, that creates a wall. And the sentiment is so negative among immigrants who are so frustrated, and I think this is why they're protesting today. So I salute the senator, but I -- I believe the McCain-Kennedy proposal is cleaner and better.

M. O'BRIEN: Senator, what is your quibble with the McCain- Kennedy proposal? Because in essence -- is it purely -- senator -- is it purely because of the politics as you mentioned? Your proposal has more political traction, or is there more to it?

MARTINEZ: Well, first of all, Senators McCain and Kennedy ARE fully supportive of my proposal. It is a way forward. It is a we to get this done. So I'm gong do get Senators McCain and Kennedy to call the governor and get him on our side on this.

It is a little more cumbersome, but at the same time -- it is more cumbersome. At the same time, what it accomplishes, is it gives us a way to subdivide folks who are here. The idea being those who have been here for a long time, more often than not, have established themselves in communities, while those who have been more recently, it gives them a way to get back into the country. It puts them in an opportunity to get back into the country as a legal worker, but it doesn't automatically allow them to stay.

It's something that I feel those who really are very much against any form of amnesty, which I am, find this bill more acceptable. It's a way to get it done and. It's a way -- you know, listen. The Peer Project, would be much better, governor. But -- and I supported McCain-Kennedy. The fact is we need to get something done in your Congress. We need your support and we need your help. We need you to call Senator Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate and let him -- and tell him to let us move this bill forward. We need to get it on the calendar. We need to get it moving. And I think we can get the votes for it.

M. O'BRIEN: All right, governor, did he win you over?

RICHARDSON: Well, he's action oriented, Senator Martinez. I like that.

And my only concern about these boycotts is it takes away from the real necessity of a comprehensive immigration bill that does two things, and I worry that the House only wants border security. We enhance boarder security, more Border Patrol agents. I live with this every day at the New Mexico-Mexico border. More equipment.

But also at the same time, a sensible earned-legalization plan. And if it's Senator Hagel and Martinez's initiative that has the traction and the votes and we can pass that, along with border security, in the whole Congress, then I'll be aboard.

But I just worry about the 11 million people that are out there, that are in the shadows, and you don't want to disrupt it too much with breaking families up, but I'll see what happens, and I hope that Senator Martinez gets his initiative passed the Senate. That would be an enormous step forward.

M. O'BRIEN: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Florida Senator Mel Martinez, good discussion. Thank you both, gentlemen.

RICHARDSON: Thank you.

M. O'BRIEN: CNN has the Day Without Immigrants covered coast to coast. We've got a team of reporters standing by across America, in New Mexico as well. You'll see live reports on our Spanish-language network as well, CNN En Espanol.

And when you're away from the TV, go to CNN.com, or CNN Pipeline. Either way, we'll keep you informed.

(WEATHER REPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BUSINESS HEADLINES)

S. O'BRIEN: We're going to talk -- moving on about flex time, about how you can make it work. You know, bosses don't love it. Employees often do. It's a toughie. We'll talk about that.

Then Later this morning, more and more Americans are exercising and dieting and exercising. They can not lose the weight, though.

M. O'BRIEN: The midsection again.

S. O'BRIEN: Back to the midsection.

We'll tell you what you're doing wrong if you're trying to shed some pounds and it's not working for you. That's just ahead. Stay with us.

M. O'BRIEN: Too much flex in my midsection.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

S. O'BRIEN: Flex time is not just for working women. Men also want a job and a life. So why is this, and is this employee benefit on the decline? Suzy Welch writes about flex time, why employees love it and manager's hate it, in this month's "O" magazine and she joins us from Boston.

Nice to see you, Suzy. Thanks for talking with us.

SUZY WELCH, CO-AUTHOR, "WINNING": Thanks. Glad to be here.

S. O'BRIEN: You have experienced flex time on both sides, as an employee and as a boss. You loved it as an employee. Why do you think it didn't work when you were a boss?

WELCH: It did work when I was a boss, it was just much harder than I expected to have to manage it. It was wonderful to receive it. It was wonderful to be at the -- to be the beneficiary of flex time when I was a working mother.

But then when I had to manage an office full of people who wanted to use flex time, it got very hard. I think we managed to make it work, but it's not easy for a manager to balance all the needs of everyone in the office. And ...

S. O'BRIEN: So what was the biggest problem when you say it got hard? Was it because there was sort of jealousy from other employees who were not flex-time employees, or was it the individuals themselves, you know, couldn't really stick to the deal that they had struck?

WELCH: I think it is both of those things. I think that the biggest problem with flex time though, as a manager, is that it forces you to have some really difficult conversations that you probably should have had long before, conversations about performance.

The problem with flex time is when people come in, they expect it sort of like a benefit like the dental plan. You know, I'm working now. I have got a baby at home, and I want my flex time.

The problem is your boss wants you to have a life and wants you to be happy and wants you to have flex time, but they need your performance and they need your results, and flex time introduces another variable into that mix and you need to then sit down with some employees and have different, you know, difficult conversations about performances and delivery.

S. O'BRIEN: Difficult because if they're not a good performer, they shouldn't have flex time, you think?

WELCH: Well, I think that -- difficult because sometimes you haven't told people that they're not good performers, and then they come to you and they say I'd like some flex time, and you think, well, you know -- to yourself you're thinking, well, you had a hard enough time delivering results when you were a full-time employee and now you're asking to be at home two days a week? Yes, right.

S. O'BRIEN: In the office in front of the boss you're struggling. It's going to be a problem if you're going to be home for some of it or whatever flex time agreement you work out.

WELCH: Right.

S. O'BRIEN: You know, the question I think in all this discussion highlights something that I've noticed a lot lately which is -- and mostly women, frankly. You have all these qualified women who cannot figure out how to really make it work, because, you know, there's no longer the eight-hour day. There's no longer even the 10- hour day.

You have a BlackBerry and a cell phone. That means anybody can reach you at any time, so some people just leave the work force. What is the right answer that can take competent, intelligent, well- qualified people and give -- match them to jobs that have a little flexibility in them?

WELCH: It's totally overwhelming. That's what happens is that suddenly, very competent women are working two full-time jobs. That's what happens with flex time. You're working two full-time jobs and it does overwhelm you.

The good news is that eventually you get better at it. It takes time. And when I think women leave the work force is in that first year where they feel like I'm not equipped, I can't handle it. It's too much. It's too many moving pieces. If you stick it out, you eventually develop systems. You know, you get good part time help at home. You find ways where your kids can be in the places they want to be when you're not there, and you work it out. But it is -- those first years where you are trying to balance these two big jobs -- two full-time jobs, it can bring you to your knees, especially because of the technology that makes it so you are never off.

S. O'BRIEN: Let me run through some of your tips. You say be strategic, be results-oriented and a be a top performer. We talked about the last one, and be strategic, obviously, is going with a plan.

But should you come out -- when you have that discussion with your boss, do you want to say, listen, your goal for me is X and so every month we meet to make sure that I'm performing to that level? I mean, is it as simple as that?

WELCH: The more candid and concrete you can be with your boss about what he or she is expecting from you when you go to a flex time schedule, it is critical. You've got to say, what do you expect? What would high performance look like to you?

And then check in frequently and make sure you're hitting it, because the more the conversations don't happen, that resentments build up -- and they don't build up just between you and your boss. There's those other people in the office who are watching your flex time, you know, with eagle eyes.

S. O'BRIEN: And think you might be sliding. All right. Suzy Welch, thanks for joining us this morning. Appreciate those tips.

WELCH: Thanks a lot.

S. O'BRIEN: We'll take a look at our top stories right after this short break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com