<html><body> <DIV>Even if the guest worker was present completely at the pleasure of the employer - and I am not familiar with the language of the current bill - the fact that the status is in some sense regularized means that there is greater space for activity to protect their rights - even if only for such things as litigation to enforce wage and hour standards and administrative agency litigation with immigration agency, than is  the case now where the undocumented are forced to live completely iin the shadows of the economy.  Granted, however, that amnesty is far preferable. SR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: gboozell@juno.com <BR> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <DIV>I thought that under the proposed guest worker program, immigrant workers remained</DIV> <DIV>in this country at the pleasure of the employer.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If that's true, how does that enhance job security - or has the guest worker proposal changed?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Greg Boozell</DIV> <DIV><A href="mailto:gboozell@juno.com">gboozell@juno.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:22:47 +0000 <A href="mailto:srobin21@comcast.net">srobin21@comcast.net</A> (Steven L. Robinson) writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"> <DIV>   Well, the AFL-CIO's position is consistent with the historic hostility of many (such as Cesar Chavez) to the old bracero program.  </DIV> <DIV>     It seems to me that people working under a guest worker program would have greater job security and  freedom than undocumented workers currently have and might be more receptive to organizing. SR</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>