>> Yes, and it'll probably continue until(if?) unemployment approaches 7
>> percent, when the labor bosses will call on La Migra to step-up
>> enforcement, again. That, of course, was the theme of the article you
>> quoted, Nathan:
>
>No it's not the theme.
Sorry for the ambiguous grammar. The theme of the piece was actually the part after the colon, the part you omitted: the INS has stopped cracking down on illegals who fill employers' needs.
>But some people will bash unions when they do even
>the right thing, which just shows the complete ideological bias of those on
>the sectarian side of these debates.
UNITE did the right thing. They didn't do anything "progressive," as you'd claimed. The first two clauses mentioned in the excerpt that you posted benefit employers--by allowing an uninterrupted work flow and preventing potential p.r. embarrassments--as much as they do workers. The third clause sounds like a basic human and labor right, and there's nothing heroic in achieving that.
It's amazing how you turn every criticism of union leaders and union blather into a blanket criticism of "unions." Nowhere did I criticize rank-and-filers, activists, or unions as an institution.
>When unemployment was a lot higher in 1984 [sic; 1994], the unions
>came out across the board against Prop 187, the anti-immigrant initiative.
>Unions like SEIU 1877, the janitors union, campaigned heavily on the
>initiative, making it one of their highest priorities in that election.
Minor point: Weren't most of the heaviest campaigners still affiliated with SEIU 399 during Proposition 187? As I recall, most of the janitors didn't join 1877 until '97. I could be wrong though.
But it's worth noting that the janitors switched affiliation because of 399's racist, and antidemocratic, leadership (and again, I was only referring to leadership in my post). When the minority-heavy rank-and-file slate won control of the executive board in the early '90s, the white president disbanded the board and placed the local in trusteeship--so that blacks and immigrants wouldn't control their union. So it's fine if illegals keep their jobs, as long as they don't ask for rights within the union.
Eric