AFL-CIO goes another thing right

[RGacky3]

I don't know whats happening, but the AFL-CIO seams to really be picking up the ball here, usually most mainstream unions don't give a rats ass about undocumented workers, but looks like the AFL-CIO is trying to stick up for them. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/afl-cio-nlrb-undocumented-workers_n_953764.html)

Splitting with the Democrats, sticking up for undocumented immigrants means that maybe the AFL-CIO is starting to see the light.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

They backed the Great American Boycott in 2006 so this shouldn't be too surprising.

[RGacky3]

Its something many unions would'nt touch though.

[Judicator]

I don't know whats happening, but the AFL-CIO seams to really be picking up the ball here, usually most mainstream unions don't give a rats ass about undocumented workers, but looks like the AFL-CIO is trying to stick up for them. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/afl-cio-nlrb-undocumented-workers_n_953764.html)

Splitting with the Democrats, sticking up for undocumented immigrants means that maybe the AFL-CIO is starting to see the light.

The cynical interpretation would be that the AFL-CIO wants to make the cost of hiring illegal immigrants as high as possible, reducing the competition the AFL-CIO faces from immigrants. One way to do this is to allow them to sue for backpay.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not sure which unions were involved, but they backed the immigrant "freedom rides" and have had a hot and cold relationship towards immigrant labor and cross-border organizing since the late 1990s. While I think this is a positive thing, I'm also suspicious and doubt that the union leadership would dare go further left than the Democratic politicians on this issue, but immigrant rights are worker rights and I think that any upsurge in labor rank and file militancy would have to take a non-apologetic approach to organizing full labor rights for all regardless of citizenship status in order to make gains for the labor movement.


The cynical interpretation would be that the AFL-CIO wants to make the cost of hiring illegal immigrants as high as possible, reducing the competition the AFL-CIO faces from immigrants. One way to do this is to allow them to sue for backpay.If you mean that they would want all workers in US companies to be paid according to the same laws and contracts rather than having Jim-crow hiring, then yes you would be correct. Although you'd be giving the union leadership too much credit.

[Judicator]

If you mean that they would want all workers in US companies to be paid according to the same laws and contracts rather than having Jim-crow hiring, then yes you would be correct. Although you'd be giving the union leadership too much credit.

No, they want maximum wages for their own members. In this case, making it legally difficult for companies to pay illegal immigrants low wages accomplishes this goal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, they want maximum wages for their own members. In this case, making it legally difficult for companies to pay illegal immigrants low wages accomplishes this goal.Yeah not allowing a segregated workforce with pay inequality helps to prevent business from divide and rule tactics that lower wages, that would be part of the motivation -- and a good one. History in the US shows that segregated workforces make it difficult for the working class to make gains... bosses in the South would use black people as strike-breakers and bosses play apon white anti-black racism to pay some positions less than they normally would be because they were mainly held by black workers. Even after jim-crow, the legacy of racism in the south and anti-union laws had made southern jobs pay less than the same jobs in the north.

So, defending worker's wages... yeah, that's what unions are supposed to do... too bad the labor unions are so half-hearted around protecting wages or building working class solidarity.

[Judicator]

Yeah not allowing a segregated workforce with pay inequality helps to prevent business from divide and rule tactics that lower wages, that would be part of the motivation -- and a good one. History in the US shows that segregated workforces make it difficult for the working class to make gains... bosses in the South would use black people as strike-breakers and bosses play apon white anti-black racism to pay some positions less than they normally would be because they were mainly held by black workers. Even after jim-crow, the legacy of racism in the south and anti-union laws had made southern jobs pay less than the same jobs in the north.

So, defending worker's wages... yeah, that's what unions are supposed to do... too bad the labor unions are so half-hearted around protecting wages or building working class solidarity.

Somehow I don't think there are too many AFL-CIO workers picking oranges in Florida...its probably split among legal and illegal immigrants.

The workers in the AFL-CIO don't want to be replaced by immigrants, so by raising their wages they make companies that much less likely to hire them (since it's more expensive, on top of being illegal). This is obvious if you look at the extreme case where illegal immigrant wages match AFL-CIO wages.

[RGacky3]

This is obvious if you look at the extreme case where illegal immigrant wages match AFL-CIO wages.

What cases are those?

Also perhaps the AFL-CIO wants to organize illigal workers as well ...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Somehow I don't think there are too many AFL-CIO workers picking oranges in Florida...Farm laborers outside of California do not have the right to organize. In California they do because people fought for it and so now there is the UFW who were, incidentally, affiliated to the AFL-CIO until recently when they switched.


The workers in the AFL-CIO don't want to be replaced by immigrants, so by raising their wages they make companies that much less likely to hire them (since it's more expensive, on top of being illegal). This is obvious if you look at the extreme case where illegal immigrant wages match AFL-CIO wages.The flaw in this logic is that inoder to be paid the same as unionized workers, the immigrants would have to be unionized. The reality is that some of the union leadership recognized that native-immigrant labor competion is a race to the bottom and a tool for union-busting, there are two historical answers to this kind of situation: nativism and labor protectionism or solidarity and a fight for a unified labor-force where all people who work have the same rights. Nativism does nothing to stop the race to the bottom and actually helps strengthen the ability of bosses to exploit immigrant labor whereas solidarity has been that way the labor movement has been able to make gains.

[Judicator]

The flaw in this logic is that inoder to be paid the same as unionized workers, the immigrants would have to be unionized. The reality is that some of the union leadership recognized that native-immigrant labor competion is a race to the bottom and a tool for union-busting, there are two historical answers to this kind of situation: nativism and labor protectionism or solidarity and a fight for a unified labor-force where all people who work have the same rights. Nativism does nothing to stop the race to the bottom and actually helps strengthen the ability of bosses to exploit immigrant labor whereas solidarity has been that way the labor movement has been able to make gains.

Right, so illegals are probably not going to be paid the same as union members, but as the costs of hiring illegals increases (due to AFL-CIO supported lawsuits), corporations are less likely to hire them, and take the union members instead.

[RGacky3]

Right, so illegals are probably not going to be paid the same as union members, but as the costs of hiring illegals increases (due to AFL-CIO supported lawsuits), corporations are less likely to hire them, and take the union members instead.

As long as illigals get lower pay than union members they are gonna get hired.

[Judicator]

As long as illigals get lower pay than union members they are gonna get hired.

Illegals get hired LESS when their wages (or legal hassle associated with hiring) are HIGHER.

[RGacky3]

not neccessarily.