Readers Say Ethics Went Down the Drain : There’s a risk in hiring a guy on a street corner, just as there’s risk in playing the bond market and driving the freeway to work.

James K. Mattis of Sunland writes:

I see from today’s column that you are not planning on accepting any employment that requires Senate confirmation, lest you go the way of Zoe Baird for the way you solved your plumbing problem. Very interesting!

We have a class of people eager to hew our wood and draw our water, and the public and politicians are not grateful, but seek to punish them and their children. In the Bible, the commandment against immigrant bashing is repeated as often as the commandment against adultery, because they both are sins that people seem to enjoy doing.

So Robert Citron’s betting strategy may have cost taxpayers more money than all of California’s illegal aliens combined!? In the spirit of Proposition 187, maybe there ought to be a law, to deport the ex-treasurer to the outer darkness, and to make all his seed ineligible for any tax-paid benefits, even so much as setting foot on public pavement. . .

And so on.

Mr. Mattis is a man of such strong convictions that he belongs to both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Assn. He’s one of several readers who have responded to my column last Thursday contrasting and comparing Orange County’s $2-billion investment loss with the $600 I spent to fix a plumbing problem that drew an initial estimate of $3,200. This was accomplished with the help of a licensed plumber named John and an unlicensed, undocumented and thus illegal immigrant named Almado.

Mr. Mattis may be right about my chances in a Senate confirmation hearing, but this wasn’t the first time my column has served as a confessional. I’ve previously admitted to the hiring of an illegal immigrant and, unlike President Clinton, I’ve admitted to inhaling (exactly what, I can’t remember).

‘Tis the season, so in the spirit of generosity I’ll give readers more space than usual today and hold my comments until the end. I’ll try to be brief, because I still have some shopping to do.

Karen Mason of the Hollywood Hills writes:

Your gratuitous comparison between your ingenuity with your plumbing problem and Orange County’s fiscal irresponsibility putting billions down the drain misses some salient points.

First, you pride yourself on the money you saved using an undocumented laborer who was standing on the corner and willing to work for $6 an hour.

The fact that the job went off smoothly . . . convinces you that you were shrewd. However, what if the shoring under your house were bad and part of the house collapsed? Undocumented Almado would have been long gone, unless of course, he got hurt and then you have had medical bills on top of your hourly wage. Maybe, he would have dug through a sewer line, a phone cable, or another pipe. The licensed contractor is paid to know these things and pays sky-high insurance premiums to cover himself and you in the event of problems . . .

Secondly . . . you ignore a whole range of social issues. Almado probably had dependents using our schools, hospitals and social services. If you had not come by that day and paid him so generously, how would he and his family eat and live?. . . You did not pay any Social Security tax, any state disability tax, any unemployment tax or see if any permits were necessary for your job. You looked only at your own convenience and your own bottom line . . . In the same vein, Russ Compton of Somewhere in Cyberspace adds:

Congratulations on saving money on your plumbing bill. You were lucky this time. What if Almado had broken your water lines when he was digging? Would he know what to do? More than likely you would have been stuck without water until your licensed plumber could repair it at a much greater cost.

I agree that the $3,200 estimate was out of line, but that’s why you get another opinion. I also don’t think people are blaming all their problems on people like Almado. And who was trying to get something for nothing here? I’m sure Almado will declare that money on his tax return too. I’m not against the spending of money on illegals for needed services either, but don’t blame people for being tired of there being too many hands in the cookie jar.

From another perspective, David Waelder of North Hollywood writes:

I share with you the feeling that hubris and a feeling of entitlement have led Orange County down a foolish and self-destructive path. However, based on your account of the repairs, I wonder if you don’t have more in common with the people working the angles than you care to admit.

I toil in the vineyards of the entertainment industry. Although there is a general perception that most film technicians are very well paid, relentless competitive pressures have driven down wages on many projects . . . It has given me a perspective on wages needed in a free - lance market.

Bear with me as we do a little arithmetic. I calculate that a working individual needs about $20,000 to $24,000 per year to enjoy a reasonably comfortable life in L.A. . . . I am aware that many get by on much less.

When you hire someone to work for only one day, you are hiring free - lance help. Realistically, a free - lance worker is not likely to be able to secure paying work more than one day in two. To earn a living wage, he must earn as much in one day as regular contract labor would earn in two. With 250 billable days per year, a $24,000 income requires $96 per day. Someone working day-to-day must earn about $192 per day just to maintain that minimum standard.

None of us can personally assume responsibility for all the misfortunes in our community. However, when you hire a man to work I believe you owe him a living wage. When you hired Almado you effectively took him out of the labor market for the whole day and paid him only $40.. . .

Your home is now repaired because you were successfully able to exploit Almado’s desperation to your advantage. Forgive me, but I don’t see much difference between your behavior and the burghers of Orange County.

Now it’s my turn.

To Karen Mason’s charge that I was concerned with my “own bottom line,” the plea is guilty. But if it pleases the court, may I point out that though I promised Almado $6 an hour, I actually paid him $40 for four hours of work. The $16 bonus might be considered a guilt-resolution fee. My conscience, such as it is, may have anticipated the charges of exploitation--but not David Waelder’s suggestion that Almado’s labors were worth $192.

There’s a risk in hiring a guy on a street corner, just as there’s risk in playing the bond market and driving the freeway to work. We always weigh the risks against the benefits. I’m still not 100% sure about this, but it seems I violated federal law in hiring Almado. Lucky for me, this law isn’t enforced much, so the risk is low. You’d think that admitting it in the newspaper would increase the risk, but the INS hasn’t come looking for me. When I called the agency Monday, I was told that I probably should have filled out “a Form I-9.”

A Form I-9? Just to hire a guy to dig a hole in my yard?

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Calif. 91311. Please include a phone number. Address TimesLink or Prodigy e-mail to YQTU59A ( via the Internet: YQTU59A@prodigy.com).