By Nathan J. Comp
When Alfonso Zepeda-Capistrán began documenting wage-abuse complaints from
employees at La Hacienda Mexican restaurant on Park Street, the 41-year-old
Mexican native didn’t doubt the veracity of what he was hearing. It’s a story
he’s heard many, many times from Latino immigrants who’d worked at other local
establishments.
But more than an advocate of workers’ rights, Zepeda-Capistrán has been a
tireless purveyor of betterment for Madison’s Latino community. As president of
Latinos United for Change and Advancement (LUChA) for many years, Zepeda-Capistrán
promoted social policies that would pave inroads for Latinos with regard to
employment and education. As an employee of the state Department of Public
Instruction, he works with the Migrant Education Program, which aims to foster
the educational success of migrant children statewide.
Zepeda-Capistrán recently spoke with The Madison Times about the challenges
facing Madison’s Latino community, its barriers to broad assimilation, and why
he’s gone up against high profile Latino lawyer Victor Arellano in a
worker-abuse case involving a Latino restaurateur.
TMT: What is the biggest challenge Madison’s Latino community faces
today?
AZC: One of the biggest challenges is accommodating the numbers of
immigrants that have settled into the area, especially in the last 10 to 15
years. There’s a lack of adequate resources, and I think there is still a need
for the community to somehow understand what immigrants are here for and the
many ways they are positive contributors to the community. There’s a lack of
understanding. They’re often seen as “others” rather than as members of the
community as a whole.
TMT: What are some of the barriers that prevent full assimilation?
AZC: One of the most recent challenges that has been very public is the
immigration crackdown. It has been difficult for the Latino community in
particular because there are some here who are undocumented, and that is a big
challenge to them and to those social services dedicated to serve them. Not
only are there people without legal residency status not able to access a
state-issued ID or driver’s license, but there are a number of other issues that
are difficult for them: Access to health care, decent paying jobs, and services
in general.
There is discrimination, and [the fact that] many of these immigrants speak a
different language often scares other people. The fact that there are still
immigrants who don’t speak English is sometimes seen as threatening factor.
TMT: Has all of the immigration talk in Washington had any influence on
Madison?
AZC: Whenever there is an initiative or talk in Congress, there is also hope
that something positive will come. People would like to see a decent immigration
reform come about. Unfortunately, there is a lack of political will to get
anything through that is decent. And because of the elections coming up next
year, I don’t think any of the leading candidates in either camp is willing to
espouse decent immigration reform. They don’t want to talk about controversial
issues.
TMT: County Supervisor Ashok Kumar recently proposed a county ID card
program to help undocumented citizens without ID to open bank accounts, etc.
Would such a program be helpful, and do you support it?
AZC: I support it, yes. I think it would be helpful. Any program that gives
people an opportunity to be identified and gives them access to something like a
bank account … is helpful. These are people who are working and they have a
need to have things like bank accounts or other such things that require some
form of identification to be initiated. It would be a big plus.
That has been one of my criticisms of the state passing Act 126, that prevents
them from getting IDs at the state level, because one of the arguments made when
that was proposed, specially at the national level, was that they wanted to know
that the people are who they say they are when they’re applying for documents.
But the trouble with that statement is that if you don’t give them access to an
ID so that they can be identified, how are you going to know they are who they
say they are?
By not giving them that opportunity, you’re basically excluding them from being
part of any community and encouraging them to hide or to go and buy documents
that may, in the end, result in worse consequences for them. It’s not helpful
to want to identify people but then not give them an opportunity to identify
them[selves].
TMT: Given attorney Victor Arellano’s high profile, what kind of rift
has his defending La Hacienda’s owners caused in the Latino community?
AZC: It is true that Victor is a high profile attorney and good at it. He
fights hard for his clients, and this is no exception. But, unfortunately,
because he has taken this issue publicly, I think it hurts his client more than
it helps him. Bad publicity is never good, especially for a restaurant.
I think there are many individuals who don’t agree with him, but they are
keeping quiet instead of being outspoken about an outrageous situation. For me,
it was an easy decision. When workers claim there is abuse, that they are not
being paid what they worked for, the least I could do is listen and document. At
a minimum, people should be allowed to take action if they feel there are being
taken advantage of. They approached the Worker Rights Center, because that is
what they could afford.
Obviously, people with more resources have a higher chance of getting their case
heard by hiring a high profile attorney, as in this case. Low-wage workers don’t
always have resources … I’m not saying either side is right or wrong, but I
don’t think anyone in such a precarious situation would have risked their
well-being and means of livelihood by complaining about the few dollars they’re
owed, if they didn’t think there was merit in it. It is really a matter of
fairness, and they deserved a chance to be listened to.
I think it may have had a rift effect only because Arellano and the media made
it so by asking if the Latino community should protest a Latino business owner,
or that there was a public outrage only because the owner happens to be Latino
and the leadership of the Workers’ Rights Center isn’t. I don’t think this has
anything to do with that. Worker abuse is worker abuse, no matter how you look
at it. A business owner should not be exempted from taking responsibility [for]
treating his workers fairly simply because he is a “minority.” It is too bad
that not more people have come in defense of the workers.
TMT: Why did you decide to stick your neck out in defense of the workers
at La Hacienda?
AZC: When the workers came to me as their cases were being documented, I had
no reason to doubt them. It’s something we have seen at many places, including
La Hacienda, for a long time. Why would a worker in such a precarious situation
be making up information when they have more to risk? If I hear a complaint, I
am willing to sit down and hear the case.
Unfortunately, in the very beginning, there was an attempt to get together with
the owner of La Hacienda, and he refused to sit down and talk about it. It would
have avoided all the publicity. That’s why the Workers’ Rights Center decided to
go public and picket. La Hacienda, through its attorney, did, too.
For me, it was a very easy decision … abuse of any kind should not to be
tolerated. And it actually looks worse when the abuse comes from someone who is
from the same race. I hope it gets resolved soon, because it is not good for
anyone.
TMT: When you say abuses, what kind of abuses are you speaking of?
AZC: One of the concerns from the workers I interviewed this time around had
to do with workers not being paid all the hours they worked. They claim to have
been asked to clock out after eight hours of work, but continued to work longer
— sometimes two, three, or more hours daily. The extra hours are the ones in
question.
So, after a while, you can see if the workers are only being paid for the eight
hours when they work 10 or 11, I would say they have a legitimate reason to
complain. Now, the other side argues that this is not the case. But unless the
parties are willing to talk, there is not going to be a resolution.
The employer obviously has the right to defend himself, and he has hired an
attorney. Unfortunately, people who feel for the workers aren’t saying a thing,
even when they may be in full agreement with them. Perhaps it is because of
Arellano’s high profile. Fear!
TMT: How would the situation at La Hacienda be different if the owner
was Caucasian and not Latino?
AZC: I don’t think that should matter. We’re talking about workers not being
paid hours they are owed. To me, it doesn’t matter if you are Black, White,
Hispanic, or of any background. If an employer is not paying its workers for the
hours they’ve worked, it shouldn’t matter that he is Hispanic. In fact, it is
more of a reason to pay them well.
That was one of the issues brought up by the attorney, but I don’t think that
has anything to do with it. Hispanics, Latinos, or Mexicans shouldn’t be
exempted from abiding by the rules.