Unions And Immigrants

Earlier this week, Immigration Daily (www.ilw.com) posted a thoughtful entry on Unions And Immigrants:

About two years ago, the country’s labor unions split into two: a coalition of unions with millions of union members bolted from the ranks of the old AFL-CIO, and formed the Change to Win coalition. The AFL-CIO that remained was about a third smaller than its former self. This has had important consequences for immigration, particularly the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) battle currently underway on Capitol Hill, here’s why. Historically, the largest organized opposition to immigration in the US was big labor. This was true in the late 1800s, and remained true through almost all of the 1900s. The switch of the unions from the “anti” side to the “pro” side in the late 1990s was thus a momentous change and was spear-headed within the old AFL-CIO by the leaders of the unions that have since bolted to form the Change to Win coalition. The new AFL-CIO has been reverting to a bit of the old union behavior – for example, while the SEIU and UNITE HERE (members of the Change to Win coalition) are part of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, http://www.cirnow.org/ the AFL-CIO is conspicuously absent. There is good reason why. Generalizing a bit broadly, the Change to Win coalition unions largely organize occupations that cannot be globalized easily (e.g. waiters, hotel staff, laundry workers), while the new AFL- CIO unions largely organize occupations that are subject to strong global competition (e.g. steel workers, auto workers). Put another way, while we can import a car from Japan, dirty dishes cannot be sent to Mexico to be cleaned. Again generalizing a bit broadly, the Change to Win coalition sees immigrants as future union members, while the new AFL-CIO views foreign workers, both overseas and migrants, as potential competitors for jobs. For those who keep the lessons of history in mind, the fear that the AFL-CIO might soon join the Pat Buchanan-Lou Dobbs anti- immigration gang is reasonable. Recent events illustrate how this new union landscape is affecting events currently on the Hill. Everyone expected that Senators McCain and Kennedy would join this year, as they did last year, in leading the CIR battle on the Hill. To everyone’s surprise, this has not happened, and despite three full months having already passed, the Senate has not had any major bill introduced, nor is any markup currently scheduled. Rumor has it that the fall-out between Mr. McCain and Mr. Kennedy happened over Mr. Kennedy’s insistence that undocumented immigrants be covered under Davis-Bacon wages, and Mr. McCain’s demurrer thereto. With the Democrats in charge of the agenda on the Hill, Mr. Kennedy apparently thought he could achieve a long-sought- after goal of his friends at the AFL-CIO and extend Davis-Bacon to cover a large swath of the US workforce. Naturally, Mr. McCain did not see this as part of any immigration compromise, and the result has been not just a lost opportunity, but deadlock on Capitol Hill, giving more time for the anti-immigrationists to organize in opposition to CIR. Since Republican votes will be essential for CIR to become a reality, it will be impossible to avoid enriching corporations in the process of legalizing workers and worker flows. Going for worker protections beyond seeking true portability will likely be self-defeating. Liberal Democrats will have to choose between their old friends in the unions and immigrants. In other words, if CIR does not happen, liberal Democrats will likely be most responsible (much as they will blame the anti-immigrationists, the reality will be otherwise). Swing votes in politics have a disproportionate power, and the few Republican votes necessary for CIR will surely exact a high price. When Congress returns from its Easter break, the future of our nation, and its immigrants, will be in its hands. We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com

KJ