Yesterday she, along with Gloria Allred, of course, gave yet another statement to the press. Apparently I wasn’t the only one wondering why she would come forward like this. Here is what she said:
“I knew the risk of speaking out and I was afraid for my family. Despite my fear, I decided to come out from the shadows, the shadows in which millions of people live every day,” she said. “It's not fair that we work hard and then get thrown away like garbage. We have families to support like you do. We are here. We need you just like you need us. Meg Whitman, don't say I was part of your family because you never treated me like I was."All right, I am still confused.
Is she angry because she got fired for being illegal, even though she also appears to be arguing that she should have been fired much sooner?
Is she angry because Meg Whitman didn’t help her become legal, even though Meg Whitman had no duty to do so?
Is she angry that she made $23 an hour for nine years?
Is she angry she had to work hard for that $23 an hour for nine years?
Is she angry she’s illegal, even though she voluntarily put herself in that position?
Is she angry because life isn't fair sometimes?
Also from the linked article:
Diaz Santillan again refused to take questions from the media, and several questions remain about the woman’s emergence.Of course she did.
And then this blog is reporting that the claim that was filed seeks $6,210 in back wages:
Allred seems to have arrived at this figure by estimating that Diaz Santillan worked 18 hours per week, but was only paid for 15 hours. She then took the balance of 3 hours per week, multiplied it by $23/hr., and and multiplied that by 21 months -- which is the total period that Diaz Santillan was employed by Whitman within the past three years.Wow, I thought she was used and abused and horribly taken advantage of for years. Isn't that how the previous press conferences have made it sound? But the claim is an extra three hours a week, that there is obviously no proof she even worked. It's an estimate! Three hours a week! Think about this for a second. She came forward and risked her status in this country for $6,210. It just makes no sense.
Oh, and she’s apparently also angry that Meg Whitman didn’t buy her a baby gift, send her a card, or check up on her during the eight months she was at home with the baby. Wait a second. Meg Whitman gave her eight months maternity leave and she’s complaining? Isn't that a heck of a lot more than you are required to get under federal guidelines? Also, it seems to me that Meg Whitman was probably pretty busy around that time…you know…running eBay. Would it have been nice to send her a card or gift for the new baby? Sure. Was she obligated in any way, shape, or form to do so? Of course not.
So now I guess it's all about as clear as mud.