For some reason, Nathan did not append my last critical paragraph to his reply...hmmm...
"It does still seem to me to be a mistake for the AFL-CIO to lobby the capitalist state to impose sanctions on countries that it finds to have violated eco-labor standards as such sanctions will doubtless only be applied for said bargaining purposes by a capitalist state, not the improvement of the conditions under which our imports are made (this will only happen through real worker power abroad to which US sanctions can only make the most dubious contribution) or even the protection of many American jobs in already heavily automated sectors."
And to that he did not reply. __________________________
Now to respond to his post which everyone has seen here in toto:
>Unfortunately, the downside is that those payments were sent to the workers
>homes in Mexico where they were deported.
Yes, Nathan, I don't see how this is a victory! There were deported, the union drive was crushed; nor do I see how amnesty for some will protect other trabajadores sin papeles in the future. They seem defenceless in front of the law. Protection is only enjoyed by citizens, not workers because they are workers. The amnesty plan does nothing to improve the situation for those who remain 'illegal'.
For
>a while, the US Labor Department had a "memorandum of understanding " with
>the INS to turnover any evidence of undocumented workers. This of course
>meant that any complaint of labor abuses could easily snowball into
>deportations.
Yes but once those complaints of labor absues become public, then will the AFL push the INS to deport them, the ones that have not been given amnesty? Has Sweeney made a promise not to snitch, much less to provide support for those 'illegal' workers threatened with repatriation?
Yours, Rakesh