Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AFL-CIO Chief Slams Guest Worker Programs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 12:58 PM
Original message
AFL-CIO Chief Slams Guest Worker Programs
WASHINGTON - The nation's largest labor organization on Tuesday criticized plans to expand guest worker programs for immigrants seeking to come to the United States, parting company with longtime Senate Democratic allies who pushed successfully to include them in broad-based immigration legislation.

"Guest worker programs are a bad idea and harm all workers," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement released the day after the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared an immigration bill. "They cast workers into a perennial second-class status, and unfairly put their fates into their employers' hands."

...

All eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee supported both guest worker provisions on Monday, and all of them frequently work in concert with organized labor.

...

"Guest worker programs "encourage employers to turn good jobs into temporary jobs at reduced wages and diminished working conditions and contribute to the growing class of workers laboring in poverty," Sweeney said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/immigration


Democrats need to reach out to organized labor, not alienate it further. UGH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. "All eight democrats on the Judiciary Committee supported
both guest worker provisions...".

Honestly, what is the point anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think this is going to have a greater negative effect than Dems
anticipate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. At the very least it will probably keep them neck and neck w/ the pubs...
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 01:34 PM by sadiesworld
which is where they like it, apparently. As an FDR/populist kind of dem, I see very little reason to continue to participate in the charade. What have they given us over the past decade+? NAFTA, CAFTA, IWR, outsourcing, Bankruptcy Bill, silence on BBV, and now a guest worker program. Even with SS they've failed to address the fact that our payroll taxes are still being diverted into the general (war) fund.

I'm sure this sentiment will not be popular on DU, but if the only fight left is b/t Hollywood and the fundies, I'll just sit it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. "Hollywood vs. the Fundies"
I think you speak for many with that statement? I'm not ready to toss up my hands yet, but I'm sorry that your feeling a lack of representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I think so too!
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 01:50 PM by Hubert Flottz
The AFL-CIO always backs the democrats, but that may change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. A different approach more Dems can get behind?
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 01:54 PM by pat_k
Controlling our borders with the stroke of a pen

Building a wall takes time. We don't need to wait. We can effectively control immigration with the stroke of a pen by passing legislation that includes two basic elements:
  • Going after predatory employers.

  • Offering a path to citizenship for whistleblowers and their families.

Specifically:
  • Expand the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to cover every business and individual employer, whether they employ documented or undocumented workers.
    Conditions and terms of employment must meet FLSA and safety requirements for any wage earner who meets the criteria that would require reporting under IRS rules (e.g, the IRS threshold this year is $1500 for most of work).

  • Criminalize predatory employment practices.
    Predatory employers who are violating FLSA, violating OSHA standards, and evading taxes must be subject to prosecution and mandatory prison time.

  • Whistleblower immigration amnesty.
    Clear processes for workers to report predatory employers and maintain anonymity throughout the course of investigation. Whistleblowers who are undocumented (whether an individual or a group) are offered a path to citizenship.

  • Increase resources and create special units as required
    Affected agencies would include the Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Dept of Justice, OSHA, IRS, and INS. The Wage and Hour Division is probably the logical agency to oversee the handling of charges against predatory employers, including preliminary investigation, referral to Justice for investigation and prosecution, referral to IRS, and coordination with INS to process undocumented whistleblowers and other undocumented workers.

Controlling our borders isn't really about control; it's about values

"Controlling our borders" means more than erecting barriers or patrolling. Controlling our borders is about making a commitment to act in a manner that is consistent with our values.

When we set employment standards we are expressing our values. Those standards reflect our belief that all human beings have a right to be treated fairly.

As long as we allow ANY workers to be exploited within our borders, we disgrace ourselves. As long as we turn a blind eye to the violations committed by people who enter illegally or remain after their visa expires, we demonstrate hypocrisy.

Guest worker programs have a place, but too often; such programs have been used to give employers a ticket to pay substandard wages and subject workers to unsafe conditions. We cannot tolerate programs that set different standards for "guests."

To be consistent with American values, we need to "just say no" to the exploitation workers -- documented or not. Continuing to permit predatory employers to operate within our borders will only drive more and more of Us and "Them" into poverty.

Making implicit costs explicit

The harmful effects of supporting an underground economy are costly to the nation. When we "just say no" to the exploitation workers, some implicit costs will be made explicit. Americans have a choice. We can invest our tax dollars to our common benefit, or bear the costs -- both moral and monetary -- of exploiting other human beings.

If we choose make predatory employers the prime target, we can ensure the survival of vital "underground economy" sectors by providing transitional supports. We can offset increased costs of goods or services to the working class through tax credits. (Should be part of shifting the costs of citizenship from those who benefit the least from our common infrastructure to those who benefit the most.)

Radically changing the rules of the game

If predatory employers faced serious penalties, and the undocumented workers they are exploiting benefited from blowing the whistle, we would significantly increase the risk of exploiting workers.

The threat of exposure and prosecution alone will be sufficient for many to revamp their operations. In some sectors, the predators may simply move operations offshore. In others, predators may be forced out of business. As noted above, it may serve the public interest to provide transition assistance or start up assistance for replacement businesses.

Undoubtedly, a significant percent of undocumented workers would continue to evade detection, but employers would be far less likely to exploit them. If the workers are making a fair wage, the "race to the bottom" has a lower limit and the negative effect on wages is reduced.

We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

There are situations in which our interests are best served by providing an alternative to deportation. Nevertheless, if it does not serve a public interest to provide an alternative we should not hesitate to deport those who violate immigration laws.

We have a right to enforce our immigration laws. When we shift our focus to predatory employers, we are not forfeiting that right.

Offering legal status to whistleblowers serves us in two vital ways -- it deters predatory employers and it gives authorities vital resources "on the ground" who are motivated to expose those who are not deterred.

Targeting predatory employers creates a new class of unemployable undocumented workers If we do not institute a program that offers an opportunity to achieve legal (employable) status to those who are displaced, the deportation and support costs are likely to rise to intolerable levels.

If we decide that minimizing competition for jobs is worth the costs associated with deportation, the number of families who are offered legal status could be limited by entering those who qualify a "lottery" of sorts. It may seem harsh to allow chance to determine who stays and who goes, but deportation must remain the default consequence of breaking our immigration laws.

Conclusion

Our underground economy makes the United States very attractive to people who are struggling to survive in their own countries. We can change the dynamics right now and virtually eliminate the underground economy, and in the process, minimize the incentive to enter this country unlawfully.

Saying no to the exploitation of workers is central to controlling our borders. Radically changing the rules of the game makes other aspects of controlling immigration more manageable, but it does not eliminate the need for them. We still need to do a better job of tracking the foreign nationals who come here to work, study, or visit. We still need to make our border with Mexico as impenetrable as possible, while weighing the costs against the benefits.

We cannot continue to hypocritically turn a blind eye to violations of our immigration laws or tolerate the exploitation of workers within our borders. As is often the case, committing to enacting and enforcing laws that that reflect our values is not just the right thing to do, it ultimately serves the common good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. A step in a balanced direction.
Thank you. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. I was speaking of this on another post
and we should be very afraid of these "Guest Worker" programs that will put us all out of business.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Unfortunately, the Dems cannot always walk hand-in-hand with labor
Recall, if you will, the fact that many big labor groups were very much in favor of ANWR drilling, because of the jobs that would become available in that endeavor.

It isn't always a comfortable fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Drilling in Alaska was not going to effect the ability for people
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 02:20 PM by mzmolly
all across the nation to put "food on their family" er uhm table at night. Coming from a blue collar background, I understand the "life" and drilling in ANWR would not have hit home the way the immigration issue will.

When construction workers can't find jobs because "guest workers" are working for 5 bucks an hour sans benefits, it's not going to go over very well.

You do have a point Will, and I would never suggest that Dems stand with labor on every issue, but on this one - we better start a dialog and find some middle ground, quick like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC