<html><body>
<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>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Wojtek Sokolowski <wsokol52@yahoo.com> <BR><BR>> <BR>> I am 100% with Medina on this. Not just because being <BR>> part of the debate in Congress, but above all because <BR>> of internationalism (remember workers of all countries <BR>> unite?). US unions supporting migrant laborers is an <BR>> excellent oportunity to build a truly interntionalist <BR>> labor movement. It is because of the division of the <BR>> working class by the national borders that allows the <BR>> capitalist class the divide-and-rule approach to <BR>> labor. Besides, immigrant workers are prospective <BR>> union members, and this creates an opportunity to <BR>> reverse the decline of union density in this country. <BR>> <BR>> The ALF-CIO's dependency argument seems to be a <BR>> diversion to cover up xenophobia. Even if there is <BR>> such dependency on the employer, it only creates an <BR>> opportunity for unions to break it by organizing such <BR>> workers, provding theme with legal assistance, and <BR>> making sure that sweatshops laws are enforced. I <BR>> think that the perception that migrant workers somehow <BR>> "compete" with the US workers is mostly false because <BR>> of labor market segmentation. Each of these classes <BR>> of workers occupy different niches and seldom compete <BR>> with one another. <BR>> <BR>> Wojtek <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>