>On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> >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'.
Umm...too subtle irony problem. My "downside" comment was emphasizing how empty the victory was. It illustrates how labor law can be applied equally to citizens and noncitizens alike, yet in effect still allow terror against undocumented workers.
It was using it to highlight why amnesty is so critical an issue for labor to be promoting to achieve real protection for workers.
> 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?
It will probably vary on the situation, to be honest, since the decision will not be Sweeney's but local labor leaders or even rank-and-file workers. It only takes one person to "drop a dime" to the INS. All you can say is that from his time leading SEIU and the Justice for Janitors campaign to the new call for amnesty, Sweeney's leadership in defense of immigrant rights and against employer abuse has been one of his most admirable qualities.
In general organizing drives, most unionists now fight to organize, not deport undocumented workers. I've seen unions that have threatened mass action against an employer who even talked about calling in the INS. HERE 2850 in Oakland had a number of emergency mobilizations of community support when they were organizing a restaurante where the employer threatened to check everyone's social security numbers; with enough pressure, the employer backed off and the restaurant was unionized.
Obviously, on the other hand, if employers start using illegals as strike-breakers and scabs, a lot of union folks will be tempted to call the INS. You can take the pure line, but when folks are fighting for their livelihood, I'm not going to sit on Olympus and condemn any resort to the INS as a weapon against employer attempts to break a strike, even if I might prefer almost any other tactic available. Scabs, legal or undocumented, don't get a lot of sympathy from me.
-- Nathan Newman