> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
>
> Max & Nathan:
>
> One doesn't quite get this happy impression by reading, for instance,
> _Forbidden Workers: Illegal Chinese Immigrants and American
> Labor_ by Peter Kwong.
>
> Have you read the book?
Yes, I've read a large part of it and it's a very important book. But Yoshie, I know this stuff very well. I ran the major national immigrant rights email list after the passage of Prop 187. We organized national rallies on campuses across the country and my work was cited in THE NATION and USA TODAY. I say that not just to show my street cred but to really fight this stupid stereotype that labor activists are clueless on all these race and immigration issues. There are a lot of stupid assholes in labor on the race and immigration issues, but some of the deepest, most profound pro-immigrant activists in the country are on the payroll of the AFL-CIO.
> I think that some union leaders have come to see that immigrants can and
> should be organized, but I don't think that they have gone so far as to
> embrace them all, legal _or illegal_. And what of rank-and-file workers?
> What do they think?
First, the leadership has embraced all workers, legal and illegal, because that is the only way to win. I've been there in union drives where the unions see the INS as the enemy, not a friend, since illegal immigrant workers are often their top organizers if the fear of the INS can be fought. Not all of it, but most of the leadership has, as I posted, extremely progressive positions on immigration -- anti-INS, pro-benefits, pro-family unification and strong cross-border perspectives. There is lots of room for improvement in vision, but a lot of unions - and I would cite SEIU and HERE as in the lead here - are fighting harder on a day-to-day basis for the rights of immigrant workers, including undocumented workers, than almost any other group.
As for rank-and-file workers, a lot of them are immigrants and others reflect a lot of the mixture of cultural attitudes in our society. But the union leadership continues to educate their members and are moving them along. The message is that either unions embrace everyone or unions will not make it in the next millenium. If the social vision does not move the membership, raw self-interest will have to.
> A look at the conditions of agricultural workers -- wages have
> not improved for the last couple of decades, and in fact they have
generally steeply
> declined -- says a lot about this thorny question.
> In manufacturing, lots of undocumented workers must be working for small
> sweatshops subcontracting for large corporations. How do unions
> meaningfully represent such workers?
Unfortunately, US labor law makes it nearly impossible. Remember, agricultural workers have no right under national law to organize, so every step was an uphill fight. IN California, it took new state government laws to create any protections and Republican governors essentially dismantled those protections in the 1980s and 1990s - helping to destroy the United Farm Workers (with a bit of poor organizing by Cesar Chavez in his declining years).
As for subcontractors, it is literally illegal for the sweatshop workers to picket the main employer or picket for a boycott of their products in case of a strike. It is really hard to convey how abysmal labor law is in the area of subcontracting-- literally, you might as well say unionism is illegal in most sweatshops to all extents and purposes. Which is why groups like Justice for Janitors, representing mostly immigrant workers at janitorial subcontractors, had to engage in massive civil disobediance since they had literally no legal recourse.
But they have made inroads in a few areas like janitors and some small subcontractors. It's tough as hell but instead of accusing the unions of bad faith, it might be fairer to recognize the tough-ass job faces by union organizers and respect the efforts being made. That doesn't mean they don't need more pushing all the time, but there should be respect for the efforts being made.
And as for Marty Hart-Landsberg *****
> If Clinton says that these are
> important rights and the WTO should take them up we should demand that he
> and the Congress pass laws that defend these rights in this country. That
> is the best way to sharpen the issue and struggle. And to build a
> movement that can defend worker rights in this country.
And the labor movement is doing this. In fact, they have made supporting the right to organize their litmus test on political support. Which is why you have Gore and Bradley making lots of speeches about supporting the right to organize, fighting replacement workers and pro-labor contracting rules being passed in local governments around the country. Fighting for the right to organize in the United States is what the AFL-CIO unions do day-in and day-out.
But by the way, here is what the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) has written about the United States in its country-by-country reports prepared in its submissions calling for labor standards in the WTO:
========== INTERNATIONALLY-RECOGNISED CORE LABOUR STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES REPORT FOR THE WTO GENERAL COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE TRADE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES (Geneva, 12 and 14 July 1999)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States has ratified only one of the seven core labour standards. In many areas, particularly regarding freedom of association, further measures are needed in order to comply fully with the commitments the US accepted at Singapore in 1996 and Geneva in 1998 in the WTO Ministerial Declarations and in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted in June 1998.
The US has not ratified either of the ILO’s two core conventions on trade union rights. The right to organise and right to strike are not adequately protected in US labour legislation. The law is unable to protect workers when the employer is determined to destroy or prevent union representation.
The US has not ratified either of the ILO’s two core conventions on discrimination. While the law generally provides satisfactory provisions against discrimination, in practice women receive much lower remuneration than men and other forms of discrimination persist.
The US has not ratified the ILO’s core convention on child labour. A major area of abuse is the agricultural sector, particularly concerning children of migrant workers.
The US has ratified one of the ILO’s two core conventions on forced labour. There are grounds for concern about commercial production by prisoners in the US and about practices amounting to forced labour by exploited migrant workers (mainly women) in US dependent territories.
The US supports respect for labour standards internationally in its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) for imports from developing countries. Countries engaging in violations of defined workers’ rights have been liable to lose their duty-free or reduced-tariff access to the US market. ====================
The right to organize is being pushed within the United States, but that does not mean international issues can be ignored. In fact, if you want labor to look internationally in a progressive way, they have to think about the international system of labor rights -- it is the only counterbalance to Buchanite appeals to racism and isolationism.
Hell, labor unions earned their bad reputation over decades of collaboration with the CIA and failure to organize seriously. But there have been incredible changes in the union movement, many preceding Sweeney's accession, but others being pushed by the new leadership. They deserve credit, not the nasty dismissals by a lot of folks who haven't had to deal with the realities of organizing in the hell that is today's workplaces.
Criticism is always needed, but give folks credit for good faith.
-- Nathan Newman