Biting Back: Whitman's Nannygate

on the estate (did she fire the dog walker?)

Does it surprise anyone that Whitman would have undocumented workers toiling for lousy pay on her estate in Atherton?   Long before she was Candidate Whitman, she was citizen Whitman, and a busy one at that.  It would be a rare thing in that zip code for a household to not have undocumented (and documented) workers toiling away as housekeepers, nannies or yard help.

A little perspective might help since Silly Silicon Valley is a slightly different colored bubble than the rest of the universe.  The average (bell curve average) income in that zip code tops $240,000.   The average (!) home price is $3.92M.   When you think of Atherton, think of CEO-ville, Venture Capital-cove, and old wealth.  Atherton is an enclave nearby Stanford University that is well protected from peering eyeballs by high stone walls, huge foliage and lots of private security.  Nannies and housekeepers drive a Range Rover kept for that purpose. 

There are a ton of workers, documented and not toiling away in Atherton providing everything from housekeeping to mow, blow and go (that would lawn service) to shopping and nanny services.  And just because that zip code is supremely wealthy, it does not mean they pay the best wages either. 

If any papers were traded, and if (a big if) Ms. Whitman was paying payroll taxes including social security for this person, she would have known very early on that those papers were fake.  Even though we all know the IRS is slow, after half a decade you'd think they'd say something about it.  But nine years?  A more common practice is that the housekeeper, along with other household help were paid regularly with a check or cash - straight up for the hours without any payroll taxes removed.

If, as has been stated by the Whitman campaign, that the housekeeper came from an agency, then most agencies or companies that provide housekeeping services require that you pay the agency and not the individual.  The agency or company pays the employees directly.  If Whitman were to have gotten an employee from an agency, most provide extensive background checks and bonding, especially if they are sending employees to homes of very wealthy people (hello: security).  Something just does not add up.

There is truth to this matter somewhere in the facts presented by both sides, and undoubtedly it is rather simple.  However, the claims by the Whitman campaign so far are not making much sense.  But then again, having Gloria Allard as your mouthpiece tends to make things a little more sensational than they are.

It would, however, be surprising if Whitman had NOT employed anyone who had questionable immigration status as a worker in her home at some point in time.  The problem is more on the end where citizen Whitman became Candidate Whitman without a thought to how her past might factor into a public service job. 

All along Whitman has seen the CA Governorship as an extension of being a corporate CEO and still has no idea that past practices matter - like a voting record, or hiring household help.   It would be fair to say that Meg Whitman's housekeeper-gate will not be the only problem in her past that comes back to bite.

In fact, taken together, the growing list speaks to that attitude of arrogance: Goldman Sachs, her lack of understanding basic civics and the CA Constitution, the old absent voting record, and her waffling on immigration and green, and now housekeeper/nanny-gate.

Meg Whitman doesn't even understand immigration - she has waffled continually on immigration status and immigration reform from the beginning.  From the Daily Kos on the 9/28 Brown-Whitman debate:

"Whitman Says She Is Unfamiliar With Illegal Immigration Terminology
[Whitman] has struggled to explain her past and current positions on the issue. She said...her lack of familiarity with the issue and her newness to politics had caused the misunderstanding. ‘When you’re new to politics, sometimes you use words that have like a meaning to people who have been in politics for 20 years,’ she explained." [The Washington Post, 5/31/10]"

Housekeeper-gate will ebb into the news abyss as have the other issues, but in the end the combination of all these troubling factors might be the difference between Meg being just Candidate Whitman rather than Governor Whitman come November 2.

One can hope that voters are paying close attention.