Why are the labor unions silent on illegal immigration?

Great Debates
1

I come from a long line of union members. My father, grandfather, and greatgrandfather were all union members during most of their working lives.

The labor unions have traditionally fought hard against laws which could result in lower wages for its’ members. They lobby Congress for higher minimum wage, better working conditions and the like. Labor unions have also often resorted to violence against those who they think are threats to their job security.

I remember my grandfather telling my dad that back in his day, that strikers would take baseball bats and beat nonunion labor that tried to take their jobs. I guess crossing a picket line was dangerous stuff back then. My dad would also honor picket lines and refused to work nonunion for much of his life.

A lot of that is excessive, but it did serve to protect the wages and jobs of the union members. I mention this not because I’m totally for or against unions. I see both the good and the bad in them.

I just bring all that up in the context of the labor unions being silent about illegal immigration. I can’t understand why something that has the effect of lowering the price of labor would not be opposed by the unions.

Now a lot of people have the notion that illegals only take jobs Americans wont do. Thats not true at all. Illegals are working in all sorts of jobs and trades now. From construction to meatpacking, to landscaping to all of the service industries. It’s plainly not true that Americans won’t do these jobs, or this country would never have prospered in the past.

I’m just wondering why the labor unions havent protested illegals doing work for a fraction of what the going rate is. With an estimated 8-12 million illegals in this country, thats a lot of cheap labor. They’ve basicly taken over the construction industry in Southern California. They also tend to work for cash and not pay any taxes. Here’s an article that says that up to 30% of all workers in LA county are working under the table for cash.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/cash-economy.html

Where are the labor unions on that? Doesn’t that hurt their members when there is such a large pool of cheap labor?
I don’t believe that 50 years ago that the unions would have tolerated open borders.

Now, I can see why a business owner would hire illegals at the expense of other workers. He’s getting a great deal on labor and will be able to fatten his profits. So, thats understandable on his part, although still criminal. I just don’t get it why the unions are silent.

2

They’re not silent on immigration – they just don’t say what you’re expecting them to say.

In my experience working with union organizers, they don’t try to prevent immigration: on the contrary, they try to make sure that immigrant workers receive the same labor protections that they’ve fought for on behalf of all workers. If there’s a group of unprotected workers, it drags down the entire labor market, they reason.

I’m sure that there are virulently anti-immigrant union members, the kind that vote for Patrick Buchanan. But my impression is that they’re not generally in leadership positions.

Daniel

3

Oh, goody, something I can answer with authority. I recently worked on the union legalization campaign. On the union’s side.

Part of the issue is that the union membership is divided. Hispanic members tend to be pro-legalization and black members tend to be anti-. I never worked with any reps from predominantly white union locals, so I can’t give my opinion on those. The ones that are more heavily on the pro-side are LIUNA, SEIU, UFW, UNITE and a few others.

Union leadership tends to be pro-immigration because they realize that stopping illegal immigration is nearly impossible. Their plan has become to offset the relatively minor wage drops that illegal immigration brings by unionizing the immigrants. The easiest way to do that is to get them amnesty.

A lesser reason is that a lot of the senior organizers, regional coordinators and even union heads learned their craft under Cesar Chavez in the fight for UFW rights and there is a large element of social justice to their mindset. They view the immigration issue in this manner.

4

Check out also the AFL-CIO, UNITE! (a .pdf file), and the UE.

Daniel

5

HC: *Where are the labor unions on that? Doesn’t that hurt their members when there is such a large pool of cheap labor? I don’t believe that 50 years ago that the unions would have tolerated open borders. […] I just don’t get it why the unions are silent. *

Actually, the unions aren’t being “silent”, they’re strongly voicing their support for measures like illegal immigration amnesty. This is indeed a change from as recently as less than 20 years ago, when the AFL-CIO supported the “employer sanctions law” penalizing employers of illegal aliens.

Why the change? Well, several decades ago unions were in a lot better position than they are today. Labor law enforcement has grown much weaker, and unions have lost a great deal of membership. At present, I think unions see businesses as a greater threat to American workers’ prosperity and safety than illegal immigrant workers. They are figuring that their best strategy is to stand up for alien workers and get immigrant support for unionization in return. The idea seems to be that American union members and illegal immigrant workers had better “hang together, or assuredly they will all hang separately”.

Some details about the AFL-CIO’s 2000 call for undocumented-workers amnesty:

6

I posted this link in the other Illegal Immigration thread: http://www.urban.org/pubs/immig/immig.htm

An illegal labor force does not necessarily depress wages or limit opportunities of other workers.

Also, as DanielWithrow noted, the unions are not silent, just not against. As most business or natural enterprises, one of the key goals of organized labor is to exist and grow. And since the presence of these low wage earners does not in most cases displace existing membership, they find that support of illegal immigrants/undocumented workers leads to organization of their workplaces, which leads to a greater membership base, which leads to greater numbers of dues-paying members, which in theory i suppose leads to greater benefits for existing members.

In preview: What Kimstu said.

7

All of that must be in theory only, being that the main reason employers prefer illegals is because they can pay them less and give them less benefits than legal workers. I would imagine that if any workplace full of illegals were to unionize, that the employer would run them off.

8

[QUOTE As most business or natural enterprises, one of the key goals of organized labor is to exist and grow. And since the presence of these low wage earners does not in most cases displace existing membership, they find that support of illegal immigrants/undocumented workers leads to organization of their workplaces, which leads to a greater membership base, which leads to greater numbers of dues-paying members, which in theory i suppose leads to greater benefits for existing members.

**[/QUOTE]

I agree that labor unions look at the new workers as potential union members, not as a threat to them or already established employees. I understand that some companies are “closed shop,” meaning that you have to belong to a union to work there. So, why would the union care if the member is a former or a new employee?

9

Actually, I was referring to the union, not the employer.

And yes, attempts to organize are often met with the employer’s contempt.

10

And here is another thing I just thought of, while not in the “illegal immigrant” topic, it does have something to do with unions, scab labor and unfair competition:

If NAFTA had happened long ago, and Mexican truck drivers drivers driving Mexican trucks, had access to the interior of the US, wouldn’t the Teamster union have shut down the highways and freeways of the US, and wouldn’t there actually be cases of Teamster union truckers pulling over Mexican truck drivers and pulling them out of their cabs and beating them to death on the side of the road?

Thats the kind of America I grew up in.

11

A violent, racist America? Sounds delightful :rolleyes:

Exactly. Which is why the unions are pushing for higher limits on legal immigration and amnesty initiatives. However, there are areas where unions are composed of a high amount of illegals and unionization was successful. Those unionized immigrants generally have a wage comparable to their legal brethren in the same industry.

12

Which union and local was that?

13

HC: *“However, there are areas where unions are composed of a high amount of illegals and unionization was successful.”

Which union and local was that?*

IIRC there have been a number of such cases, but here’s a reference to the “food and commercial workers union” (I presume that means UFCW) unionizing workers in Santa Clara County, CA, of whom about 10% were subsequently fired for alleged documentation discrepancies.

That’s the catch-22 for undocumented workers and unionization efforts: unionization can improve their wages and working conditions (and undocumenteds form such a large proportion of many local workforces that it would be impossible to unionize successfully without their help), but their employers can then retaliate against them by firing them. Firing workers for engaging in unionization activities is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, but the “employer sanctions law” (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) is held to take precedence over the NLRA.

*If NAFTA had happened long ago, and Mexican truck drivers drivers driving Mexican trucks, had access to the interior of the US, wouldn’t the Teamster union have shut down the highways and freeways of the US, and wouldn’t there actually be cases of Teamster union truckers pulling over Mexican truck drivers and pulling them out of their cabs and beating them to death on the side of the road?

Thats the kind of America I grew up in.*

:eek: Well then, we can all be thankful that some things at least are getting better. If labor union policy has evolved from “let’s defend our jobs by beating low-wage undocumented workers to death” to “let’s all stand together for decent wages and working conditions for all workers, and not make scapegoats out of illegal immigrants who are just trying to earn a better life for themselves and their families”, that at least is progress.

14

Those were the days, eh?

Care to explain how Mexican truckers driving Mexican trucks carrying Mexican goods–under provisions of law set forth in a binding international agreement–relates to scabs and unfair competition? I see it as more of a highway and equipment safety issue. Oh looky, so does the IBT.

In today’s Chicago Tribune there’s a report on another alarming example of unions’ silence on illegal immigration: a caravan to Washington DC and nationwide rallies.

I think the Trib is a free sub site, but here’s the gist: “Borrowing themes from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, union officials intend to use the nationwide campaign to promote legalization of undocumented workers, protections for immigrants on the job and the right of immigrant workers to be reunited with family members living outside the U.S.”

…

“Recruiting immigrant workers would boost the numbers. It would be ridiculous to deny that,” said Linda Chavez-Thompson, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO. “If there are employers who abuse the rights of these workers, and there are, and we allow that, then that begins to downgrade what we have tried over the years to build up.”