Assessment of Legislative Efforts to Combat
Wage Theft Among Low Wage Workers in
Denver, CO
Mary Kohrman, Sarah Friend, Andrew Johnson, Ryan Lowry & Otilia Enica
Josef Korbel School of International Studies
Qualitative Research Methodologies
Professor Rebecca Galemba
November 21, 2015
Abstract
Traditionally, it’s expected that an employee’s work will be compensated by the
employer. Despite these widely held values, wage theft has proven to be an endemic national
problem. In Colorado alone, it has been estimated that workers are losing “$750 million a year in
pay and benefits from nonpayment of lawfully owed wages” (Stiffler 2014). This
disproportionately affects low wage workers. Since 2010, states and counties across the United
States have passed legislation and ordinances banning the practice of wage theft. In May of
2014, the Colorado General Assembly passed the Wage Protection Act (WPA), adding language
to give the CDLE, district attorneys, and private individuals the right to pursue investigation,
prosecution, or civil action against employers respectively. It is the purpose of this paper to
interpret the creation of the legislation and to ascertain the effectiveness of this bill in providing
avenues of redress for low wage workers since its enactment in January of 2015. Broadly
speaking, some of the most frequently-cited challenges of enforcement and implementation
include a lack of education about the WPA and workers’ rights in general among victims of
wage theft, limited funding for enforcing the law within the CDLE, and a widespread “probusiness” attitude on both sides of the political spectrum. By collecting ethnographic data from a
variety of sources, including both supporters and opponents of the law, we sought to situate the
problem of wage theft in Colorado in a multidimensional framework that accounts for the
educational, procedural, and enforcement challenges surrounding the WPA, while identifying
areas for possible improvement and providing policy recommendations based on those findings.
Introduction
“Workers...regardless of their migratory status...have the right to engage in a work activity under
decent, fair conditions and to receive a remuneration that allows them and the members of their
family to enjoy a decent standard of living in return for their labor.” - Inter American Court of
Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18, Paragraphs 157-158.
Codified in numerous international documents and in US domestic law are the rights of
workers to wages owed for labor carried out. Practically this is not the case, as “[b]illions of
dollars in wages are being illegally stolen from millions of workers each and every year,” a
phenomenon known simply as wage theft (Bobo 2011: 6). It “occurs when workers are not paid
all their wages, workers are denied overtime when they should be paid for it, or workers aren’t
paid at all for work they’ve performed” (ibid). It is a widespread phenomenon, permeating all
socioeconomic levels. Despite the connotation of the term ‘theft’ - making the act illegal, or
equating wage theft to criminal activity - there are multiple avenues for perpetrators to withhold
payment while seemingly following the law and leaving the situation unharmed (ibid).
1
Low wage workers - affected by their lack of legal protections and tendency to accept
low wage jobs in order to survive - are a population of workers vulnerable to wage theft. Day
laborers are a subgroup of low wage workers with increased vulnerability to wage theft due to
numerous factors such as the unregulated nature of their work and their immigration status, with
more than seventy-five percent of them being undocumented (Valenzuela et al 2006: iii). Day
laborers are a vital component of society - the backbone of our society even - with an estimated
117,600 workers searching for jobs or working as day laborers on a daily basis (ibid 2006: i).
Legal protections are lacking due in part to our society not having moved beyond racism. (Bobo
61) “The worst wage theft occurs when immigrant workers aren’t paid minimum wage or aren’t
paid at all;” their vulnerability to wage theft is made inhumane in combination with estimates
plac[ing] day laborers at or below the poverty threshold, creating a sense of urgency on the part
of day laborers to accept whatever jobs are available and to agree to work on employers’ terms.”
(Melendez et al: 837) Federal and Colorado state law on wage protect all workers regardless of
their immigrant status; once they have been hired they are entitled to wages earned.
Efforts have taken place across the country and in Colorado to combat wage theft. The
Wage Protection Act, passed in 2014 and enacted on January 1, 2015, amended an existing law,
the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA). Almost a year after its enactment, what effect has the
WPA had on the wage theft movement in Colorado? We sought to research this question with a
legal ethnographic approach; the individuals creating the law were in a higher socioeconomic
class than many affected by wage theft; an elite group with power to affect the lives of
vulnerable individuals. It is important to study this powerful group of individuals and to hold
them accountable to their actions. As Paul Farmer states, “[w]hen it is a matter of telling the
truth and serving the victims, let unwelcome truths be told. Those of us privileged to witness and
2
survive such events and conditions are under an imperative to unveil – and keep unveiling –
these pathologies of power” (2003). The extreme power and position held by this subgroup
should require study, yet for many they are out of reach. They do not wish to be studied, and they
are very busy, their positions require confidentiality, and it may even be dangerous. The danger
from misunderstanding or the lack of understanding of the power is more dangerous.
We begin with a section outlining our methodology, explaining the legal ethnographic
approach we chose to conduct, analyze, and present our research. This is followed by a
discussion of the steps we took to uphold high standard of ethics and a reflection of our roles as
not only researchers, but also students in relation to the topic and our subjects. Our analysis
begins with a section providing background information on legislative efforts to combat wage
theft in Colorado. We briefly outline federal legislation, emphasizing the jurisdictional gaps that
state law has had to fill. We focus on the WPA, and its three iterations. We then look at the
practical application of the WPA; we break down the administrative process legislators created,
that advocates and victims of wage theft must navigate. An analysis of the hindrances to
implementation follows including remnants of the opposition to the WPA while it was being
created such as shortcomings in the law itself from undue compromise. We conclude our
analysis by discussing data on moving forward; answering the question of how do we counter
shortcomings in the law and frustrations echoed by all of our subjects?
Methodology
Ethnography of law, or the anthropological study of power, is necessary to better
understand the practical application of law. Law, and the powers that create it, controls the lives
of the subjects that many anthropologists have focused their studies on, as “[law] affects social
life in many ways, inside and outside formal legal institutions,” as well as “[defining] identities,
3
[allocating] who can use which spaces, [providing] belonging, and [serving] as an authoritative
source for creating knowledge and history” (Engle Merry 2013: 2). Further, law, and the powers
that create it, also influence the results of those studies. As Laura Nader states, “there is a certain
urgency to this kind of anthropology concerned with power, for the quality of life and our lives
depend on the extent to which citizens understand those who shape attitudes and actually control
institutional structures” (1972: 1). As such, we chose the approach of legal ethnography to frame
our study in order to explore the role of power, and lack of power, in the creation and
implementation of the WPA.
As a group, we first interviewed Raja Raghunath, a law professor as the University of
Denver and co-principal investigator to the “Wage Theft in the Commercial Construction
Industry in Denver, CO” study, under which our research operated. Raghunath served as a key
informant, outlining for us the background of the wage theft movement, as well as explaining the
WPA in detail. As none of us had any legal experience, speaking to Raghunath was an important
first step in understanding the space which we were exploring. Following our interview with
Raghunath, we divided the workload between us. We grouped potential informants into various
categories including public and government officials, law enforcement officers, lawyers,
lobbyists, and advocates. We each carried out interviews with a different group of informants,
and while this was useful in the sense that we were each able to become experts on specific
aspects of the research, it required active communication to keep the group as a whole wellinformed.
From October through November 2015, we conducted 14 additional interviews with
actors involved in the wage theft movement to varying degrees (See Appendix A for a list of
contacts). All interviews and observations used throughout this analysis come from our research,
4
unless otherwise noted. Some of our initial contacts were chosen by reviewing the contact list of
a previous research group, which carried out a similar study in the spring of 2015. Raghunath
also provided us with several recommendations for informants, as did Professor Rebecca
Galemba, the other co-principal investigator. Other informants were sought out due to their
position in certain agencies. As we conducted our research, we used the snowballing method,
taking recommendations from informants to identify other potential informants (Bernard 2011:
147). Additionally, we used theoretical sampling, which allowed us to select informants as
themes began to emerge (ibid: 435). We were able to use the reputation of Raghunath and
Galemba, as well as the previous research team, to gain initial contact with some informants. As
such, the previous research group, Raghunath, and Galemba served as gatekeepers. However,
with new informants, like law enforcement officers, it was more challenging to make initial
contact. In the case of the Boulder law enforcement officers, we were able to use a personal
connection to gain access.
Most interviews took place in person, but some were carried out over the phone. During
our research, we used semi-structured interviews, which are “open ended, but [follow] a general
script and [cover] a list of topics” (ibid: 156). We chose semi-structured interviewing as we had a
limited amount of time, and would therefore have only one chance to interview informants. This
method allowed us to shape questions based off of the informants’ responses, while also gaining
relevant information. Some of our initial questions were based off of the interview questions
asked by the previous research group, while others were informed by our own background
research. As our research progressed and we began to develop our own theories, our interview
questions changed. This was helped through the use of Dedoose, an online qualitative data
coding software. By coding our data, we were able to determine patterns, further informing our
5
questions for interviews (See Appendix B for codes & definitions). It should also be noted that
questions were developed for each category of actor. For example, public officials were not
asked the same questions as law enforcement officers (See Appendix C for interview questions).
Aside from semi-structured interviews, we engaged in participant observation in two
cases: the Wage Theft Task Force meeting and a small claims court hearing in Denver. At the
Wage Theft Task Force meeting, the first to be held since the passing of the WPA, a group
member was able to take note of which organizations were represented, as well as how those
present interacted with one another. This allowed us to garner further understanding of the
relationships between those playing a role in the wage theft movement. The small claims court
hearing informed our understanding of how justice is carried out through the laws currently in
place, or in the case of this specific court hearing, how complicated the entire process can be.
Additionally, during each in person interview we were able to observe our surroundings. Many
interviews took place in offices where wage theft victims may have to go to report a grievance.
We observed the part of town these buildings were in, as well as the types of people that seemed
to frequent them. This further informed our research, as we were able to gain some insight about
how a wage theft victim might feel while accessing specific services.
Although semi-structured interviews were informative, we were limited by time. With
more time, it would have been useful to implement a survey to various actors in order to get a
better understanding of the general knowledge and opinion of certain groups. As we only
conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants selected particularly for their
knowledge and involvement in the wage theft movement, the scope of data that we were able to
collect is rather narrow and therefore not generalizable. Another limitation that can be attributed
to time, or rather timing, was the fact that this research was conducted less than one year after the
6
enactment of the WPA. Because of this, many informants referenced the fact that not enough
time had passed to make judgments about the effectiveness of the law. good
Ethics & Reflexivity
Human subjects research requires strict adherence to the ethical principles laid out in the
Belmont Report: autonomy, beneficence and justice. While our study posed only minimal risk at
most to those involved, we worked hard to ensure that all measures were taken to protect the
privacy of our subjects. We strove to maximize potential benefits, minimize potential risks, and
ensure that risks within the study were fairly distributed and mitigated as much as possible.
We worked diligently to ensure the safety and confidentiality of all of informants
interviewed. While the risk to our informants was relatively minimal in the larger scope of the
project, the content of their interviews could pose a risk to their jobs, personal or professional
lives, and reputation. In order to minimize risks, people were given the option to remain
anonymous. All informants completed an informed consent form, the contents of which made
them aware of the potential risks of a breech in confidentiality. If a participant preferred to
remain anonymous, every step of the research process was designed to protect identities. If audio
recording was allowed, the subject was instructed to not identify themselves on the recording.
All recordings were deleted in entirety once transcription of the information was completed by
the researcher.
Any identifying information from an anonymous source was entered by the student
researchers using a password protected online data server, REDCap, which encrypts the identity
7
of the subject and assigns them an identification number.1 Informants wishing to remain
anonymous were identified only by the REDCap produced identification number on shared
documents. The notes from the interviews were stored in a password protected software,
Dedoose, as well as on Google Docs. Restricting accessibility to the server was a password
known only to the student researchers and the supervising faculty.
There is an inherent power differential between researchers and their subjects. We were
questioning the work, beliefs, and actions of our subjects - at times asking for sensitive
information, with limited benefits to our subjects. It was important to recognize that while the
research group was not receiving monetary compensation, we were using the data collected for
educational gain. While our stand-alone research may have little direct benefit to the low wage
workers or to those we interviewed, we believe that having this project be part of the larger
project will mean that our research and contributions will have wider ranging influence. The
secondary effect of the research will hopefully benefit all of the actors who participated in this
study, as well as those that did not.
According to John Brewer, “reflexivity involves reflection by ethnographers on the social
processes that impinge upon and influence data” (2000: 127). In conducting this study, we as
researchers needed to be cognizant of our own beliefs and backgrounds, and how these may
influence our data. As we were carrying out this research for educational gain, this affected the
1
Interviewee information was collected and securely managed to protect identifying information using
REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Denver. REDCap (Research Electronic
Data Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies,
providing 1) an intuitive interface for validated data entry; 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation
and export procedures; 3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common
statistical packages; and 4) procedures for importing data from external sources. See Paul A. Harris,
Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke, Jonathon Payne, Nathaniel Gonzalez, Jose G. Conde, Research electronic
data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing
translational research informatics support, J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr; 42(2):377-81
8
way we approached this study. We had to carefully balance the benefits we were gaining with
the benefits we were trying to provide. None of us had any background in legal studies, so this
topic was unfamiliar to us. Going into the study, we were unsure of how our lack of legal
knowledge would affect the outcome of our data. Interviewing informants who have a wealth of
knowledge on a subject that we knew so little about was intimidating, but also allowed us to
learn from informants in a way that a more informed interviewee may not have. This shaped the
path of our research, as we first had to ask specific questions about the legal background of the
law before delving into deeper issues. While at first our lack of legal knowledge felt like a
weakness, it ended up being an asset as it allowed us to learn about the law through informants,
giving us a different perspective than we would have otherwise gained from learning about the
law through background reading alone.
The WPA - Colorado’s Efforts to Combat Wage Theft
Federally, labor law is outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) originally passed
and enacted in 1938. It is enforced by the federal U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). As
Community Outreach and Resource Planning Specialist Christian Lebron explains, the federal
Wage and Hour Division investigates cases that fulfill the following criteria only claims against
business with gross sales over $500,000 that have at least two employees, or businesses engaged
in interstate commerce. The DOL in Colorado enforces the federal minimum wage unless
overtime work occurs, after which they enforce the Colorado State minimum wage. Even with
these strict stipulations, in Colorado alone the DOL recovers between “$4 and $5 million a year.”
Lebron emphasizes the communication that occurs between his office and the CDLE; his office
receives numerous complaints from low wage workers but most are involved with businesses
with less than the baseline $500,000 in annual sales and “unless [the employers] participate in
9
interstate commerce” there is nothing the DOL can do. Federal investigators are trained to do
referrals, to the state equivalent; and the rest is up to the worker taking additional steps and
approaching another government agency.
The present day version of the CWCA “has its roots in legislation that was passed over a
century ago” (Biggs and Gomez 2008: 3). The law is codified in the Colorado Code, Title 8
Article 4. It forms the foundation of Colorado wage law, and according to the CDLE it “requires
Colorado employers to pay employees their earned wages in a timely manner“ (2015).
Amendments made to the Wage Claim Act in 2003 focused on benefits to the employer rather
than the employee (Biggs and Gomez 2008: 3). Due to various factors - including a scathing
report by the Federal Government Accountability Office on the Federal Department of Labor’s
inadequate response to claims of wage theft as well as an overall shift in attitudes towards the
plights of immigrants and migrant laborers - the focus of legislative efforts have shifted over the
last decade.
The recently enacted Wage Protection Act underwent three iterations before being passed
and was sponsored by a group of State Senators and Representatives, including Rep. Jonathan
Singer, after he was appointed to office in 2012. Inspired and educated by Boulder County
Attorney Stan Garnett and community immigrant rights advocates who had struggled for many
years to aid victims of wage theft - such as FRESC, Colorado 9 to 5, and El Centro Humanitario
based in Denver - on the issue and the options which “were pretty limiting then, and are still [as
it is] criminally still very hard to process.” A Boulder County local ordinance had been created
to treat wage theft as a crime, but statewide, since wage theft “is a system[ic] problem,” there
were only so many options available. Singer sponsored a bill, HB 1296, that “would have made
it a crime for Colorado employers not to pay workers the wages they promised” (Sealover 2012).
10
The bill failed, due to a number of factors such as Singer being appointed to office late in the
session and having to introduce the bill with little preparation and minimal time to persuade
opposition and garner support both within his own party and across the aisle. “We were able to
pull out salient testimony. We pretty much knew that the outcome was predetermined. It was
really just setting the table for 2013. It was pretty easy to watch it die.”
According to Singer, the second drafting of the WPA was a “[t]extbook example of how
to do things.” In the Summer of 2013, he sat down with opponents and proponents and began to
discuss how to draft the legislation. Many different perspectives were brought together;
discussing arguments such as whether a criminal statute had the potential of increasing the
number of “frivolous lawsuits...that [would] gum up the system and cost consumers more
because of the time and effort they take,” and whether or not wage theft lawsuits would be
considered frivolous. “All of these actors we worked together, and created a quite complicated
bill in 2013.” It looked at the administrative component, but it also looked at how can people go
to court, get adequate representation, and make sure they actually prosecute these cases in civil
court. Criminalization was dropped because for many workers the most important issue was
getting paid; “[i]f your employer goes to jail, you can’t get paid; if the court orders [your
employer] to pay, you may be more likely to get your money.” Though Singer and bill
proponents had a significant majority at the time with the second version of the WPA, they
“could not get it through the business committee.” Singer worked closely with the committee
chair, who tried, unsuccessfully, to force a compromise. Singer and community advocates asked
to make a presentation on the issue of wage theft, during which they asked for solutions or
recommendations from the committee. “It was all something outside the box. Some of the
11
solutions from the committee, or individuals in the committee were more progressive than the
bill,” as they did not line up with Colorado labor laws. It “illustrated the depth of the problem.”
According to Singer, the success of the third version of the WPA was due to “getting
proponents and opponents together, the Business Committee Chair [Angela Williams who] was
cracking the whip and keeping the coalition together, and getting the media on this because it
changes people’s disposition.” SB14-005 was introduced in the Senate first, by its co-sponsor
Senator Ulibarri, who mentioned that the main opposition would be in that Chamber largely due
to a narrow Democrat majority. According to John Evans*2 the initial plan to emphasize to the
opposition how much money the state was losing each year on wage theft in order to gain
support was unsuccessful because they didn’t personally identify with this issue. “It was the
personal stories that we were able to bring that most connected with legislators” In addition there
was a shift in the strategy to appeal to the legislators; “in 2014 [the Colorado Immigrant Rights
Coalition] intentionally was not out front,” instead they made sure that there was a cross
demographic providing personal testimony. In the Committees, “people who told their stories
were predominantly white.” Though quick to state that this was not racism, the political power
and privilege that the legislators held, in the end for the bill to pass, required the racialized
immigrant demographic - though most vulnerable to wage theft due to their marginalized status to be pushed aside and their voices withheld.
Singer pointed out that “[t]here are different ways of drafting legislation, the question
[was] should we go through the criminal court process, the civil court process, or the
administrative process?” The first iteration of the WPA in 2012 was a criminal statute, which
despite its possible deterrent effect and success in Texas, according to Singer’s research, was
2
From here on out, any name with marked with asterisk (*) is a pseudonym.
12
opposed by wage theft victim advocates and the workers affected themselves. What was desired
was a process that would enable victims to file complaints and to receive their money owed
quickly. The second version of the WPA, despite its compromises and diligent work across the
aisle, also failed. Business proponents were wary of regulations, affected by unfounded fears
and myths of regulation as harmful to business development, as pointed out by Senator Ulibarri.
This second version also proposed the criminalization of wage theft, which also weakened its
existing support. The final version, a result of extensive compromise and coordination,
abandoned criminalization and individual liability becoming an administrative statute. It issued
many mandates, on a slimmed down fiscal note, according to Singer, without provisions ensuring
reexamination or mandatory reporting or transparency (Singer, Raghunath, Ulibarri).
Who is Responsible?
The CDLE is the primary actor responsible for enforcing the WPA, but limited funding
has significantly hindered its ability to assist victims of wage theft in their pursuit of legal
redress. In the system set up through the Act, when a victim files a wage complaint, the division
follows an administrative procedure by which the complaint is investigated with the knowledge
of the employer against whom the complaint was filed. According to Colorado Revised Statute §
8-4-111(2)(a)(III)(b), after this investigation is complete, “[i]f the division does not find a
violation based on the wage complaint and any response, including the failure by the employee
to pursue the wage complaint, the division shall issue a notice of dismissal of the complaint and
send the notice to all interested parties.” If the employer is found to have violated the WPA, it is
given a two-week window in which to repay the victim the full amount of wages owed without
13
additional fines and a fifty-percent reduction in other penalties (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4111[2][a][III][e]).
After this two-week period expires, if the employer has not yet repaid the claimant, it
must pay “[o]ne hundred twenty-five percent of that amount of such wages or compensation up
to and including seven thousand five hundred dollars” and “fifty-percent of that amount of such
wages or compensation that exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars” (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4109[3][b][I]-[II]). If the victim is not satisfied with this outcome and still wishes to reclaim the
wages to which he/she feels entitled, they have the option to “file a request for a hearing officer
within thirty-five days after the division’s decision is sent” (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-111.5[I]). The
law further stipulates that this hearing officer is to be designated by the director of the CDLE,
and will be granted “the power and authority to call, preside at, and conduct hearings” (Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 8-4-111.5[2][a]).
At present, however, this second phase exists only in theory; because of fiscal constraints,
the CDLE does not currently have any hearing officers actively working on wage theft cases.
This is not entirely the fault of the CDLE; the Department was only provided with enough
funding to hire two people per year to work on enforcing the WPA. Indeed, one of the common
critiques of the law is that while it expanded the powers of the CDLE to address wage theft, the
bill did not provide it with the means to use these powers effectively. In effect, even though the
procedures put in place through the WPA were intended to empower victims by allowing them
their day in court, the outcome of the initial investigatory phase is, for all intents and purposes,
final in the absence of a hearing officer with the authority to hear appeals to the CDLE’s
determination. As Denver City Councilman Paul Lopez put it, “It’s one thing to make a law, but
it’s another thing to create an unfunded mandate.”
14
Given how widespread the problem of wage theft in Denver is, one might expect that the
CDLE would have been provided with a more robust capacity to carry out the mandate of the
WPA. However, activist Chris Wheeler suggested that limiting funding for enforcement was
essential to the political calculus of Republicans, pro-business Democrats, and anti-WPA
lobbyists who intended to prevent the law from achieving its purpose. As Wheeler put it, the
business lobby is adept at “gutting something by not providing enough money for it” so that
when a progressive law is ultimately implemented at the administrative level, bureaucrats are
unable to meet its mandate. Moreover, these structural constraints seem to be exacerbated by
what is perceived as a lack of clarity on the part of the CDLE with regard to the process of
requesting a hearing. Robert Smith*, a Denver labor lawyer who represents victims of wage
theft, described this “informational deficit” as a major impediment to the practical
implementation of the WPA. Smith* told us that he “do[es]n’t know exactly what happens” after
his clients go through the initial investigatory process. Although he was one of the attorneys
consulted by the CDLE when the law’s regulatory structure was being devised, he said that the
Department has not provided him with guidance as to how to help his clients navigate the
hearing process. “If all of the administrative forms necessary to file a complaint and get a claim
into the administrative court phase of the process were available,” he told us, “you’d likely see
an increase in the volume of complaints being filed.” This has become such a serious problem
that some nonprofits have given up on going through the CDLE to resolve wage theft claims.
Wheeler told us that Towards Justice, a legal nonprofit that specializes in wage theft cases, has
stopped referring claimants to the CDLE altogether. Without the state’s enforcement apparatus
functioning properly, wage theft victims are left with few avenues by which to pursue justice.
15
While it is undisputed that the CDLE is currently unable to enforce the WPA, not
everyone sees its limited funding as the product of cynical partisan politics. An alternative
explanation is that legislators simply lack a full understanding of the scope of the wage theft
problem. One pro-business Democrat told us that some lawmakers were wary of investing
significant taxpayer money to address an issue that they believe is isolated to a handful of “bad
apples.” In their view, self-regulation at the industry level would be a more effective and
efficient approach than the imposition of strict legislation that could have unintended negative
consequences for employers. This stems from a fundamental disagreement between supporters
and opponents of the law with regard to who should be responsible for preventing wage theft.
Opponents believe on principle that this responsibility ought to lie with employers for both
ideological and practical reasons. One lawmaker we interviewed suggested that industry
associations would be better positioned than the state government to influence the compensation
practices of individual employers and that enforcement authority could be vested in the office of
the District Attorney under certain circumstances.
Roadblocks to Success
While the law was written to help victims of wage theft recover their lost wages, there
were many people who opposed the law and its various avenues for implementation due to fears;
be that an actual threat, unfounded, or exaggerated. The opposition, as with any new law, was
rooted in the political atmosphere at time of introduction. The bill itself went through three
phases in order to pass, and with each subsequent version it lost more of its capacity to be
successful or influential. The advocates for the law seemed to encounter endless reasons why the
law was unappealing. The vast majority of the opposition converged around three main factors:
16
fear of the practical implications of a criminalization component, the effect the law would have
on Colorado businesses, and the political weight of one group's voice over another’s.
The aspect of criminalization of the law was the first major concern of the opposition.
State Senator Jessie Ulibarri reflected on the time during the original discussions of the law
saying, “One of the conversations in the legislature was that those provisions are challenging to
figure out how to pierce the corporate veil, how to make an individual responsible for potentially
corporate actions, and so it usually meant that very quickly, the bill was dead in the water.” As
he explained, the thought that this law could segue into the potential risk of an individual taking
the responsibility of corporate wrongdoings immediately struck fear into pro-business politicians
and lobbyist. The mantra was that to threaten even guilty businesses with such ramifications
could put all businesses at risk. Ulibarri further explains, stating that “part of the dominant
narrative in our public discourse is that any regulation can potentially bankrupt a business
therefore all regulations are bad.”
Criminalization was opposed for other reasons, as well. Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle,
while not opposed to the WPA, did not agree with the criminalization aspect of the law for two
reasons: the fact that other ways to prosecute employers already existed, and the fact that if wage
claims were criminalized, the work load and criminal investigations would fall on the local
police, who are already at maximum capacity. With the police already under a constant, heavy
workload required to protect their communities, taking on additional cases involving wage theft
seemed unnecessary to Sheriff Pelle, especially when there were already institutions and other
laws in place to do so.
The fears of the opposition did not end with criminalization. The opposition also argued
that imposing new regulations could potentially damage the influx of new businesses into the
17
community or cause additional burdens on business owners with the extra paperwork and time
commitment needed to deal with these new regulations. Despite little evidence to validate their
fears, businesses continued to assume that the WPA would cause harm. “People are ideologically
business minded,” Raghunath said. “They want to be able to say that businesses are low tax, low
regulation in this state. [They thought] this may put them at a competitive disadvantage.” In
reality, there was no evidence to prove that the results would be detrimental to businesses.
Lastly, some voices held more sway in the decision making process than others. The
ability to pass a new law is dependent on support, not just from legislators but from their
constituents as well. The opinions of voters are extremely influential on whether or not
legislators back a new bill. In this case, with a large number of business lobbyists opposing the
bill and with the false assumption that undocumented workers were to see much of the benefits
of the bill, legislators felt that the WPA would not have a positive impact on their constituents
directly. In reality, wage theft can affect anyone, and the assumption that the WPA would not
have a positive impact on all constituents in Colorado was misguided. Still, the perception that
certain constituents would not support the passing of the bill lead legislators to listen to these
voices above the voices of the victims. Evans* said, “The problem is when there's an opposition,
and they may not be as sympathetic to these issues and stories about people working and not
getting paid, the question is if there’s going to be a stronger voice from the opposition who have
another voice or another story or other concerns.” Opposition did not necessarily support the act
of wage theft, however, it is clear that the interests of the business community outweighed the
concerns of the victims when it came to the potential risks involved with the original versions of
the law.
18
The final argument made against the WPA was simple: with all of the potential risks,
would the law even be effective? With few other examples to assess how successful wage theft
legislation could be, some felt that a state law would not be effective and would be a waste of
taxpayer dollars. “We [were] concerned with the criminal penalties, and when you start looking
at the experiences of other states, and at that time there were very few… really they did not see
any deduction in wage theft by imposing criminal penalties, so it didn’t seem to be an effective
tool,” Sally Rivers*, a legislator recalled. “If we are going to model this expensive program after
the Washington program, but they didn’t have any data to show if they had a decrease in wage
theft and...if you’re going to invest money and taxpayer money to develop a new program then
you want to do it based upon something that is effective.” Even now, with the depleted version
of the law currently in effect for nearly a year, there is little data to show whether or not the law
has been effective.
While the original bill may have been strong enough to combat wage theft in Colorado,
the version which was passed into law is a shadow of its former self. Even adamant advocates of
the bill who are currently trying to keep the initiate afloat have their doubts. Not only was the
criminalization aspect removed, but funding options were depleted, staffing capabilities for new
employees were expelled, and any enforcement power the bill had disappeared along with its
budget changes. Wheeler explained that with such limited funding, the CDLE could not pay for
the necessary new staff members it would need to meet the caseload requirements. Furthermore,
it was not even able to hire the new person until January 1, 2015, the date the bill came into
effect. This delay meant time wasted on training, staffing, and recruitment which could have
been spent working on cases. The law was stripped of funding, and therefore staffing; it was
stripped of time, and therefore momentum to be successful. Even those at other ally
19
organizations, such as El Centro and Towards Justice, are feeling the suffocating effects of the
CDLE being understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. The lack of progress since the passing of
the law is not the fault of the CDLE, but the fault of the weak legislation.
Of the many hindrances standing in the way of successful implementation, one of the
most grievous and yet avoidable hindrances to implementation is a lack of self reporting of wage
theft by the victims themselves. Victims of wage theft have various reasons for not coming
forward to report this crime. For many, the lack of education is the root cause; workers do not
know, or do not understand their rights. For others, the time and energy that it takes to go
through the process of filing a claim is not worth it; the process is lengthy, confusing, and takes
away from time that could be put towards earning money. Victims of wage theft, primary those
who do not speak English, find the process - from talking to an advocate, confronting their
employer, or going through the small claims court - too intimidating.
Other workers, particularly day laborers, face the fear of deportation. While many day
laborers have work visas, some do not. For those that do not, the fear of coming forward to
report wage theft is outweighed by the fear of deportation. While this fear is not unfounded due
to the fact that deportation is a very real threat, local police officers are more worried about
public safety and behavior than they are about immigration status. Sheriff Pelle explained that
police officers under his jurisdiction “don’t investigate immigration status [and] don’t ask about
immigration status.” He further explains that trust between a victim and the police must be
established, as undocumented workers are “not going to have status issues as a victim.” The risk
is only to those who have committed the crime and been arrested. There is no blatant risk to an
undocumented worker who seeks the help of the police in a claim where they have been
20
victimized. Pelle says, “If someone is afraid to report a crime because of their immigration
status, it just pushes an entire segment of the community underground.”
Moving Forward
The efforts made to combat wage theft through legislation were admirable and certainly
made strides in attempting to strengthen Colorado’s laws. However, it is evident that the current
legislation is not sufficient to adequately serve low wage workers who have experienced wage
theft. While the WPA was meant to create a straightforward administrative process for victims of
wage theft to seek redress, the current implementation of the amendment has yet to succeed at
doing this, mainly due to funding and organizational restraints. Many feel that the current version
of the law does not have enough “teeth” to make any real change, as it did not give the CDLE
enough power for proper implementation. Even if implementation was being carried out to its
full extent, the perception is that there are no real consequences for employers who commit wage
theft, giving employers who commit wage theft little to fear aside from a “slap on the wrist”
(Lopez). As it stands, there is no easy way for victims to seek redress for wage theft and no real
consequences for employers who commit wage theft. This does not sit well with the advocates
and lawmakers who worked to bring this law into effect.
Despite the fact that the current situation does not reflect the efforts of lawmakers and
advocates that pushed for the WPA, there is a desire to improve the law and its implementation
in the future. According to Wheeler, if the Democratic party wins control of the General
Assembly, lawmakers will make efforts to improve the WPA. This sentiment was apparent in
other conversations as well, making it clear that some feel that progress will not be possible in
the current political climate. Still, hope for the future remains and there seems to be a general
consensus among many informants that efforts to strengthen the law should still be made.
21
Improvement of the law itself could be done in many ways, including the provision of
more staff to the CDLE, an increase in the budget, and the strengthening of various components
of the current law. The need to increase funding and improve the capacities of the CDLE through
additional staffing are among the biggest concerns from informants. As the law stands, there is
little funding for the CDLE, something that lawmakers and advocates agree needs to be changed
moving forward. Ulibarri explains that the WPA has “modest investment” leading to a lack of
results. He points to restrictive limitations on revenue in Colorado as part of the issue, as it is
currently not possible to tax citizens for things like wage enforcement. This means “playing with
incredibly small pots of money with the hope of big results” and limiting the ability to make
public structures “robust and meaningful.” Another issue surrounding organizational capacity is
the fact that the law relies on the victims to bring forward cases of wage theft. This could be
changed by granting the CDLE the power to carry out proactive investigations, which would take
some of the burden of responsibility off of victims (Evans*).
Additionally, some informants mentioned the fact that the law needed to be strengthened
by setting out harsher punishments for perpetrators of wage theft. This could include steep fines,
making information about those who commit wage theft public, or even jail time. In Boulder, for
example, employers who commit wage theft face a potential one-thousand dollar fine, plus up to
one year in jail under the Failure to Pay Wages Act. Carmen Atilano of the Office of Human
Rights names this as one of the major reasons why the Boulder ordinance is so effective. Others
believe that making records public when an employer commits wage theft could be a powerful
tool for deterrence, a tactic that depends on the assumption that customers would cease seeking
services from guilty employers. While creating more consequences for employers seems an
important step in mitigating instances of wage theft, some victims are “a bit confused by the
22
strategy,” as “they [want] someone accountable when they [are] taken advantage of…[but] at the
same time their primary focus [isn’t] making sure that their boss [gets] jail time, it [is] actually
getting paid and wanting someone to be able to get their paycheck to them” (Ulibarri). In this
sense, there seems to be a rift among lawmakers, bureaucrats, and advocates with regard to what
tools are needed to more effectively implement the law.
While these changes could potentially be enacted with a change in the political
atmosphere, others feel that there will need to be more than just a Democratic majority to
advance a stricter version of the WPA. Increased awareness about wage theft in general is an
important step to gaining a broader base of support from the public. This includes improving the
public’s perception of wage theft victims. “I think when people think about this politically, they
think about undocumented workers...there’s some racism [involved],” says Lopez. However,
wage theft affects more than just undocumented workers, as he points out that “it could be a
nurse, it could be a teacher, or a firefighter.” Lopez feels that the public and lawmakers
themselves must be more educated about wage theft for a change to be made to the current law.
Lopez is not the only one who emphasizes the importance of outreach and broadening the scope
of the issue. Ulibarri also points to the fact that the image of wage theft victims must be
“[expanded] beyond the profile of what [is] perceived to be a day laborer issue,” which further
emphasizes the fact that in order for change to be made this must be perceived as an issue that
affects the majority, not just a marginalized group of people. This is a conversation that must not
be isolated to Colorado, as Kim Bobo states, “[i]f we are serious about recovering workers’
wages, deferring future wage theft, and recovering unpaid taxes, we must make ending wage
theft and payroll fraud a national priority” (157).
23
In spite of the fact that the law has not lived up to its expectations, the lawmaking process
did aid in starting a conversation about wage theft among different actors, opening up a space for
additional communication and coordination in the future. Evans* explains that the process of
passing the WPA was significant in that it helped “[bridge] some of the gaps” between actors,
which broadened the coalition. Although the law has passed, the conversation between these
actors has continued and future plans for strengthening the law have been discussed. Advocates
and lawmakers have always planned to go back and reassess the law after one year if it could be
shown that the WPA was making a positive impact. Although there is currently no information to
show that the WPA was successful, there still exists a desire to return to it at some point
(Raghunath).
Still, some feel that there may not be much movement on the issue in the near future.
Wheeler described the process through which the previous bill was “gutted” by explaining that
by providing little funding and whittling away all of the aspects that gave the law its strength,
those who opposed the law were able to make it less effective. “We were in the process of
watching the emasculation of this wage theft act,” says Wheeler, “and maybe a miracle will
occur [in the future], but I’m skeptical.” Wheeler feels that even if there are efforts to strengthen
the law, it will once again be undermined by opposition, making it difficult to get the proper
funds for the CDLE. The current lack of information surrounding the implementation of the
WPA is also causing worry. Convincing lawmakers to invest more money into a program that
has yet to show results may be a difficult feat (Rivers*). If the current climate holds and no
progress is seen from the CDLE, creating a more robust version of the WPA may be a long way
off. As Raghunath says, “We have the ability to push, but only so far.”
24
Conclusion & Recommendations
The WPA addresses a fundamental human right - the right earn a fair wage in acceptable
working conditions. It is important that laws like the WPA are given structural strength through
funding, staffing, and political backing in order to effectively address these issues. Whether the
CDLE’s funding for the WPA was limited for political reasons or as a result of insufficient
awareness among lawmakers of the issue the bill was designed to address, it is abundantly clear
that fiscal constraints, partisan politics, and limited awareness of the scope of the wage theft
problem are all significant barriers to effective implementation of the law.
Fortunately, these challenges are not insurmountable. If the Democrats were to take
control of the General Assembly in the next election - or if our public representatives cast aside
myths about nonexistent detrimental effects on business- funding could be increased and the law
could be amended in other meaningful ways to give it more “teeth.” The CDLE would then be
able to both effectively investigate wage theft claims and assist claimants in scheduling hearings
for their cases. However, whether its funding is increased or not, it is also apparent that the
CDLE needs to address the informational deficit among the lawyers and advocates who represent
victims of wage theft. This can be achieved through improved communication with these
stakeholders alongside efforts to make the procedures laid out in the WPA less opaque to its
intended beneficiaries. After all, if practitioners lack the knowledge necessary for navigating the
processes put in place by the Amendment, it seems unlikely that the victims themselves will be
able to successfully reclaim their wages. So long as these barriers persist, victims and advocates
alike remain in a decidedly unfavorable position. As Bobo aptly states, “[n]eedless to say, there
is not one simple answer to why wages are stolen. The causes are complex, but not so complex
that we can’t address them. Together we can challenge the contexts, address our individual and
25
societal sins, establish stronger worker-friendly business practices, and strengthen the pushback
factors” (2011: 66).
References
Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.
Biggs, Jude, and Christina Gomez. 2008. Colorado Wage and Hour Laws. Colorado: Holland
and Hart, LLP.
Bobo, Kim. 2011. Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Americans Are Not Getting Paid
and What We Can Do About It. New York: The New Press.
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Colorado Wage Act.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Colorado%20Wage%20Act.pdf
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. 2015. Colorado Wage Act Fact Sheet.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Colorado%20Wage%20Act%20Fact%20She
et_1.pdf
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. 2014. Wage Protection Act of 2014:
Frequently Asked Questions.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WPA%20FAQ%203-19-15.pdf
Farmer, Paul. 2003. Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the
Poor. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2003, September 17. Juridical Condition and Rights of
Undocumented Migrants: Advisory Opinion OC-18/03. Requested by the United Mexican
States. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_18_ing.pdf
Law Technology Today. Lady Justice Image (on cover page).
http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/lady-justice.jpg.
Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone. 2002. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors:
Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Melendez, Edwin J., Anne M. Visser, Nik Theordore, and Abel Valenzuela Jr. 2014, September.
Worker Centers and Day Laborers’ Wages. Social Science Quarterly, 95(3).
26
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.”
Review of General Psychology, vol 2, no 2, 175-220.
REDCap. Interviewee information was collected and securely managed to protect identifying
information using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Denver.
REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to
support data capture for research studies, providing 1) an intuitive interface for validated data
entry; 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; 3) automated export
procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and 4) procedures for
importing data from external sources. See Paul A. Harris, Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke,
Jonathon Payne, Nathaniel Gonzalez, Jose G. Conde, Research electronic data capture
(REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational
research informatics support, J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr; 42(2):377-81.
Sealover, Ed. 2012, February 28. Bill to make non-payment of wages a crime dies. Denver
Business Journal.
Stiffler, Chris. 2014 January 1. Wage Nonpayment in Colorado: Workers Lose $750 Million Per
Year - An Analysis of nonpayment of legally owed wages to Colorado Workers. Colorado Fiscal
Institute. http://www.coloradofiscal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Wage-Nonpayment-inColorado-Final-1.pdf
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2012. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided SOciety Endangers our
Future. W&W Norton
Svaldi, Aldo. 2013 March 13. “Wage Theft” bill tabled by Colorado House. The Denver Post.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22827164/wage-theft-bill-tabled-by-colorado-house
United States Department of Labor. 2009. Wage and Hour Division’s COmplaint Intake and
Investigative Processes Leave Low Wage Workers Vulnerable to Wage Theft. GAO-09-458T
Valuenzuela, Abel Jr., Nik Theodore, Edwin Melendez, and Ana Luz Gonzalez. 2006. On the
Corner: Day Labor in the United States. Los Angeles: UCLA
27
Appendix B: Codes & Definitions
■ Actors - anyone who is playing a role in the wage theft movement
■ Advocates - These are people or organizations who work to make CWCA, and
other laws that benefit low wage workers, a success (not including government
officials, law enforcement, or lawyers). These people may be good resources for
victims of wage theft to go to with questions or if they need help with starting a
claim. Advocates are those who fought for the passing of the CWCA and are still
fighting to get it back to it's original, stronger form.
■ Government Officials - Any government official that plays a role in the wage theft
movement - either as opposition or as a supporter.
■ Law Enforcement - Any law enforcement official that plays a role in the wage
theft movement. This could be through enforcement of the laws, advocating for
the laws, or voicing opposition to certain aspects of the law.
■ Lawyers - Any lawyer that plays a role in the wage theft movement - either as
opposition or as a supporter.
■ Opposition - Any actor that opposes the WPA, or any strengthening of it.
■ Enforcement - Those with authority or power being able to enforce the rules of the
CWCA or other laws in the community. It is by this enforcement that the law is taken
seriously and able to be trusted as effective. This code may also be used to code for
instances when where is a lack of enforcement of implementation due to one of the many
obstacles which impede it.
■ Fears - Any fear mentioned, whether it is unfounded or not. The concerns and worries of
any actor. These fears may be realistic, an active threat, or unfounded depending on the
situation. Oftentimes these fears are exaggerated or instigated by propaganda or hearsay
in the community. This is often the reason that some unfounded fears are deep-rooted and
culturally because they are spread around one’s community as truth.
■ Criminalization - Approaching the issue with criminal enforcement instead of civil
litigation. Any fear that suggests criminalization would have harmed businesses or
would charge someone that wasn't directly responsible for wage theft.
■ Deportation- Forcibly removed from the United States for the crime of entering
the country illegally.
■ Employers- Those people who hire day laborers as a part of their business
practice. These people may be honest and not perpetrators of wage theft, or they
may be guilty of wage theft.
■ Fear of Police/ ICE- Fear that the local police- who have no jurisdiction in
immigration policy- may be coordinating with the Federal Government and ICE to
work to deport undocumented workers. The fear is rooted in the idea that although
deportation is not something the local police normally do, that racism, personal
28
vendettas, or pressure from ICE to access records, may result in a victim being
deported for associating with the local police.
■ Harm to Businesses - The fear that if the WPA is strengthened, businesses will be
harmed
■ Victims- Those who have been the victim of wage theft, or those who are at
highest risk of it such as day laborers, undocumented workers, and many people in
the low wage Latino community as a whole.
■ Intended Purpose - What the bill was intended to solve or fix.
■ Lack of Knowledge - Any mention of lack of knowledge being an issue - if people lack
knowledge about the laws and therefore aren’t pursuing redress, if people lack knowledge
about the issue and therefore aren’t supporting it, etc.
■ Awareness - Any mention of the importance of awareness - whether this has been
a help or a hindrance to the wage theft movement
■ Education - Any mention of the importance of education, lack of education, etc. as
a hindrance to the wage theft movement, OR any mention of education being a
reason for some sort of success in the movement
■ Outreach - Any mention of outreach being needed to increase the level of
knowledge that people have about wage theft, OR any mention of outreach being
a reason for some sort of success in the movement
■ Community Outreach - Outreach done to individuals.
■ Group Outreach - Outreach by agencies to collaborate.
■ Laws - Any mention of one of the laws used to enforce wage theft
■ CWCA - Any mention of the state law (CWCA/WPA)
■ State Shortcomings - Any mention of the shortcomings of the state law
that hinder enforcement/implementation
■ Federal - Any mention of the federal law being used to enforce wage theft
■ Federal Shortcomings - Any mention of the federal law having any
shortcomings that hinder enforcement/implementation
■ Local - Any mention of local laws (ordinances) that are being used to enforce
wage theft
■ Local Shortcomings - Any mention of local laws having any shortcomings
that hinder enforcement/implementation
■ Recommendations - General recommendations about what could be done to strengthen
the WPA
■ Hope for the future - showing hope that things could be improved
■ Doubt for the future - showing doubt towards potential improvement
■
29
■ Structural Factors - Factors such as organizational, financial resources, human
resources, legal parameters, interstate and intergovernmental coordination, and
collaboration that either streamline or hinder the governmental wage theft movement.
■ Burden of Responsibility - Who holds the burden of responsibility for dealing
with wage theft?
■ Burden Sharing - Mention of responsibilities belonging to another
individual/department
■ Self Reporting - This puts a burden on the employer to pursue a case of
wage theft - it is up to them to report whether or not they have experienced
wage theft. There is no proactive investigations happening from a higher
level.
■ Caseload - Mention of the workload of those handling wage theft cases - usually
pertaining to the fact that there is a backlog in cases, etc.
■ Coordination - Any sign of coordination, or lack of coordination, between
organizations working to combat wage theft. Mention of coordination either being
a help or a hindrance to the wage theft movement/implementation of the WPA.
■ Good Coordination - Any sign that coordination between groups have
helped movement
■ Lack of Communication - Any time lack of communication has been seen
as a hindrance. This differs from coordination in that it implies that various
parties are not discussing issues with one another, so there is no chance for
coordination in the first place.
■ Lack of Coordination - Any time lack of coordination has been seen as a
hindrance
■ Lack of Funding - Any mention that lack of funding has been an issue for
implementation
■ Understaffed - Any mention that understaffed agencies has hindered
implementation
Appendix C: Interview Questions
Interview Questions for Public Officials & Advocates
■ Can you please describe your role in the wage theft movement?
■ What is your relationship to our partners including Raja Raghunath and the Wage Theft
Task Force, FRESC, and El Centro Humanitario?
■ What can you tell us about the political, social, and economic history surrounding the
creation of the CWCA and the creation of the WPA?
■ Do you feel that Denver would benefit from a stricter wage law? If so, why? What would
this law look like?
30
■ Who are the stakeholders regarding wage theft issues in Colorado? How are they
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
connected?
In your opinion, what were the most contentious issues surrounding the creation of the
CWCA/WPA? How were these issues resolved?
Can you describe the opposition’s opinion regarding the CWCA/WPA? Who were the
main opponents? What were their arguments? Were there certain aspects of the
amendment that the opposition was particularly inclined to disagree with?
Can you explain the arguments of those supporting the CWCA/WPA?
According to another source, there were three versions of the WPA, the first two of which
were denied due to vehement opposition. How did the third version of the WPA differ
from the previous two, and what (whether content, changes, or political atmosphere) led
to the passing of the third?
The WPA was implemented in January of this year. Since this time, what have been some
of the challenges of implementation? What have been some of the successes?
In your opinion, are there any resource constraints in implementing the CWCA? If so,
what are these constraints?
What do you feel is the biggest limitation to the CWCA, if any?
Can you discuss some of the differences between the state and federal wage law? What
would be the benefits of pursuing a case under the federal law versus the state law, and
vice versa?
Are you familiar with the Boulder wage theft ordinance? What do you think the key
differences are between the Boulder ordinance and the Denver ordinance? How do you
think the political atmosphere in Boulder and Denver affected these differences?
How does the political will of relevant government agencies affect the CWCA
implementation?
How do enforcement entities see the CWCA and what challenges have they encountered?
What challenges have labor rights advocates encountered when interacting with the
relevant implementation authorities?
What do you see as the main challenges that low-wage workers face when pursuing
redress for wage theft?
Even when the legal tools have been available, we have often found people do not seek
them out. How we do reconcile these new laws with the fact that much of the day labor
population has been suspect of the law (or marginalized/never served by the law?) How
can we empower CDLE or collaborate with other actors and agencies to create a climate
of enforcement?
Moving forward, what do you think is the future for the CWCA? Do you see more
changes being made to the law? If so, what would these changes look like? How do you
think these changes would impact the implementation?
31
■ Studies conclude that the level of legal knowledge/awareness of laborers (cite Trautner) -
on either their rights or the legislation created to offer redress - is as significant of a
barrier as limited implementation to the success of laborer empowerment and policy…...
■ Is there anything that we haven’t covered that you think is important for us to investigate
further?
■ Is there anyone who you would recommend that we talk with?
Interview Questions for DHS
■ How much have you dealt with wage theft? Is there discussion within DHS in either
immigration or criminal justice aspects about the wage theft?
■ What is the current and utmost challenge when handling immigration and worker’s
rights?
■ Can you elaborate why during the Obama administration, deportations of Illegal
immigrants has risen?
■ Does ICE hand out employee rights information to workers who attain either a green card
or a visa for temporary employment?
■ What types of enforcement have been used to deter businesses from employing illegal
immigration at DHS, and have they been successful?
■ Has ICE targeted corners where day laborers congregate for employment for
enforcement?
■ What types of outreach other than enforcement does ICE or DHS do with the day laborer
community, and/or the Hispanic community?
■ What types of security threats does wage theft pose to communities like Denver?
■ Is it commonplace for DHS to grant workers status if there is an attempt by an
undocumented worker to file a report for wage theft? What is the process of being
designated a victim to obtain a special visa?
■ If President Obama’s Executive Order on immigration were to pass the Supreme Court,
what are the outcomes for both DHS and the immigrant community? Will enforcement of
immigration decrease with this added protection or will there be still a gap large enough
in citizenship rights most issues associated will persist?
Interview Questions for Law Enforcement Officers
■ How familiar are you with the Colorado Wage Claim Act?
■ How much interaction do you or your fellow officers have with day laborers? In what
context?
■ Was there any education or updating done for the officers in your department when this
law passed on January 1, 2015?
■ How often do you encounter disturbances regarding wage theft (either the worker or the
employer contacting you needing assistance)?
■ What is a typical day like in your job position?
32
■ Have you had any experience in being contacted by NGOs or advocates in regards to
making you aware of/ asking for assistance with peaceful protests or going to collect lost
wages for a worker?
■ What encounters have you had with wage theft in your community? How aware were you
of this issue before this interview?
■ Which street corners/ work centers/ staffing agencies are you aware of in your
community?
■ What is your impression of these areas in terms of community involvement, crime rates,
and relationships with police departments?
■ It has been mentioned that these corners are a part of “selective enforcement” in terms of
police turning a blind eye to some undocumented workers finding work there, and
occasionally large crowds being gathered in public spaces. What is your reaction or
response to this?
■ How does either the perpetrator or victim of wage theft having a prior criminal
background effect your enforcement or process of carrying out a CWCA assignment?
■ Do you think that your department has the resources and capability to ensure CWCA
enforcer safety when they carry out a notice?
■ Do you feel that these organized corners for day laborers are beneficial or detrimental to
the communities they are in? Why?
■ Has the CWCA changed the way you handle cases of wage theft if brought to you or your
department?
■ If a worker brings forward a case of wage theft, do you question them about their legal
status? If so, how do you handle a case from an undocumented worker?
Interview Questions for Lawyers
■ Are you a labor lawyer?
■ Have you at any time represented a client in a wage theft claim case? Do you accept
claims only applicable to small claims?
■ If you advise for small claims, what are some of the biggest frustrations you have
observed?
■ Do you work with nonprofit organizations to collect and educate clients, and what
percentage would you say arrive at your office this way?
■ If the case qualifies federally under the ‘Commerce Clause,’ are you being met with help
and advisement from the CDLE?
■ In your opinion, what are the major challenges to implementing the CWCA?
■ Do you feel that the CWCA needs to be improved in order to better address wage theft? If
so, in what ways?
■ Do you feel that the shortcomings of the CWCA are primarily a function of its actual
language, or are administrative limitations to blame?
33
■ Have you found that the long timeframe associated with resolving a wage theft claim
■
■
■
■
discourages claimants from seeing the process through to its resolution? Does this deter
claimants from pursuing legal advice or representation in the first place?
Are you familiar with the Concepcion V. AT&T (2011) / American Express CO V. Italian
Color Restaurant (2013) Supreme Court cases? Do you think they play a significant role
in how Colorado legislates?
Does the Federal Arbitration Act limit the role of courts in law, or make sure the caseload
is within limits?
In cases of Wage Theft do you find that FLSA standards of records keeping are violated?
Are victims working at small construction firms covered by this? Does this factor most
often make cases or break them? Are there any penalties involved with violation?
Often times there is an anecdote of a mishap in payroll not warranted to a criminal
prosecution. This is a main argument for not criminalizing wage theft, is there a means of
alleviating excess or frivolous prosecution and/or an agency to undertake this task.
34