Received: from mail.cruzio.com (mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id SAA26697 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:18:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from wave102.cruzio.com (wave102.cruzio.com [165.227.211.102]) by mail.cruzio.com with SMTP id RAA01164 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant Rights Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: <01bdbce0$e9474460$0b00a8c0@wave102.cruzio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant Rights Once we decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, we = must have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers. = We cannot evade the issue. That's what this posting is about. =20 I'll begin by responding to comments prompted by my previous posting = (Strawberry Debacle (1): the Significance of Citizenship Status). = First, the claim here is not that the campaign is lost in strawberries. = Organizing is a long haul, and the only way the union can truly be = defeated is if it gives up. I don't think the UFW is likely to do = that. Nor am I claiming that the only lesson to be drawn-- the only = thing that could have been done to avoid this debacle-- is to pay more = attention to immigrant rights. Everyone close to the campaign knows = that mistakes were made, but also that the new UFW-- new since Cesar = passed away-- is learning its lessons and steadily strengthening itself. = In time, as it does so, that union promises to surpass the organizing = capacity and the staying power of the old UFW in its heyday. Nor is the claim being made here that undocumented workers are somehow = intrinsically unorganizeable, anti-union, etc. Rather it's that their = special vulnerability makes them much harder to organize than legal = residents, because of the heightened climate of fear in the = post-Prop-187 era, and more specifically because of steadily = strengthening INS enforcement activity & employer sanctions. Hector Delgado is among those who HAS seriously examined the = significance of citizenship status, in his excellent book New = Immigrants, Old Unions (Temple University Press, 1993), and he finds = (and still argues) that undocumented status is not a significant = deterrant to unionization. But he also suggested in that book that this = might change if enforcement efforts intensify. This is, of course, what = I claim has happened. Between the time of his research and the present = an entirely new citizenship regime has been imposed, with consequences = that include reduced access to social resources as well as increased = vulnerability to employer reprisals. We don't have the space to present = evidence here, but I'd sure like to hear from organizers who are working = with a workforce that includes significant numbers of undocumented = workers, for whom their vulnerability is NOT the most difficult = organizing issue. I know too many organizers in too many industries for = whom this is the case.=20 =20 And certainly immigrant workers have been at the forefront of labor = organizing over the past decade. I will go beyond my claim that we have = entered a new era-- a new citizenship regime, with consequences for = organizing-- and also suggest that closer examination of these movements = will support the conclusion that much of this organizing energy was = unleashed when, due to the amnesty provisions of the 1986 immigration = law, millions of previously undocumented workers achieved legal = residency status. If this is so, then here is a case of the labor = movement drawing strength from its convergence with a social movement = toward expanded citizenship. =20 Back to the strawberries. No leader has been more outspoken and = effective in advocating for the rights of immigrants in the halls of = government than the UFW's legendary Dolores Huerta. On the ground in = the Central Coast, however, the union confronts a dilemma. If it breaks = the conspiracy of silence maintained by the industry, the INS, the union = and the local political leaders, it risks provoking and perhaps = undermining the power of the boycott and the support of public leaders = in anti-immigrant climate. Consequently the union has done what Hector = suggests in his book must be done-- try to get them not to think of = themselves as immigrants but as workers. =20 Certainly the labor movement is in a bind, as immigrant workers = undeniably intensify wage competition and undermine unions' labor market = power. And visible public advocacy around the issue of rights for = undocumented workers in the context of an organizing campaign may well = attract exactly the INS enforcement that the workers fear.=20 But citizenship status is a central reality, and more than ever the = central reality for these workers. So I conclude that unless and until = it has a strong public stance speaking to the oppression of undocumented = workers, no union can claim to speak for them, nor hope to make major = strides in organizing this workforce. =20 That's why I believe that we need a labor voice on behalf of = undocumented workers, saying "Our contribution to the wealth of this = society gives us rights. Legalize us." Instead, however, the AFL-CIO = maintains its support for strengthened employer sanctions. =20 Consider the contradiction, and the irony: the labor movement's new = leadership stakes everything-- the number one organizing priority for a = leadership whose highest priority is organizing-- on organizing a = largely undocumented workforce.... while simultaneously calling for = tougher employer sanctions, the main stumbling-block to organizing that = very same workforce. I am not saying that the AFL-CIO's weak stance on immigrant rights is = entirely to blame for the current setback in strawberries. But it = hasn't helped. In addition to the issue of employer sanctions, there are other ways as = well that the AFL-CIO, the UFW, and other unions could identify the = labor movement with immigrant interests. I will talk in the next = posting about one of these-- embracing and helping to lead the = citizenship movement now making its way through the institutions toward = full political empowerment. But first I'll finish this posting with a = final piece of heresy. Again and again in the past year or so, I have heard organizers = whispering about the need for a "good bracero program"-- a guest worker = program which would not lead to permanent residence, but which would = assure workers of the same basic rights enjoyed by other U.S. workers, = the most important being the right to organize. =20 Let's think through the options very carefully, and see what questions = remain. There are three. Intensified enforcement, lax enforcement, and = what I'll call a good guestworker program. First, intensified enforcement-- that's what we have today, and besides = failed organizing campaigns there are bodies in the desert to attest to = the effects of that agenda. For at least the next decade (before = Mexico's slowing rate of workforce growth POSSIBLY relieves the pressure = to emigrate) this can only result in more bodies in the desert, and = increased criminalization and reduced organizability of a vital part of = our workforce, folks whose union spirit is an essential ingredient for = any labor movement revival in the U.S. Does anyone see a way that the = labor movement can organize explosively (because that's what we need) = under these conditions in agriculture, food processing, food services, = textiles, & small manufacturing? Especially with labor's leaders = backing the crackdown? Second, lax enforcement, perhaps someday followed by another amnesty. = In other words, return to the good old days. Not a bad public position = to take, except that our inability to make it happen will sooner or = later undermine the confidence of immigrants. Does anyone see this as a = viable option? =20 Third, a "guestworker reform agenda". Here's the question. Is it = possible to establish a good guestworker program which protects the = rights of workers, allows them to transition into legal permanent = residency status according to the same pathways that now exist, and = makes them easier rather than harder to organize? Union opposition has = meant that these programs have always been entirely defined by = employers, the INS, and elites in the country of origin. What would a = union-defined guestworker program look like? =20 More specifically, is it possible to imagine an accord with strawberry = growers in which the current workforce is transitioned into a good = guestworker status?=20 Also, what contribution might such a program make to rural development = in Mexico??? Paul Johnston Citizenship Project johnston@cruzio.com ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant = Rights

Once we decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, = we must=20 have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers.  = We=20 cannot evade the issue.   That's what this posting is=20 about.  
 
I'll begin by responding to comments prompted by my previous = posting =20 (Strawberry Debacle (1):  the Significance of Citizenship = Status). =20 First, the claim here is not that the campaign is lost in = strawberries. =20 Organizing is a long haul, and the only way the union can truly be = defeated is=20 if it gives up.   I don't think the UFW is likely to do = that. =20 Nor am I claiming that the only lesson to be drawn-- the only thing that = could=20 have been done to avoid this debacle-- is to pay more attention to = immigrant=20 rights.  Everyone close to the campaign knows that mistakes were = made, but=20 also that the new UFW-- new since Cesar passed away-- is learning its = lessons=20 and steadily strengthening itself. In time, as it does so, that union = promises=20 to surpass the organizing capacity and the staying power of the old UFW = in its=20 heyday.
 
Nor is the claim being made here that undocumented workers are = somehow=20 intrinsically unorganizeable, anti-union, etc.  Rather it's that = their=20 special vulnerability makes them much harder to organize than legal = residents,=20 because of the heightened climate of fear in the post-Prop-187 era, and = more=20 specifically because of steadily strengthening INS enforcement activity = &=20 employer sanctions.
 
Hector Delgado is among those who HAS seriously examined the = significance=20 of citizenship status, in his excellent book New Immigrants, Old Unions = (Temple=20 University Press, 1993), and he finds (and still argues) that = undocumented=20 status is not a significant deterrant to unionization.  But he also = suggested in that book that this might change if enforcement efforts=20 intensify.  This is, of course, what I claim has happened.  = Between=20 the time of his research and the present an entirely new citizenship = regime has=20 been imposed, with consequences that include reduced access to social = resources=20 as well as increased vulnerability to employer reprisals.  We don't = have=20 the space to present evidence here, but I'd sure like to hear from = organizers=20 who are working with a workforce that includes significant numbers of=20 undocumented workers, for whom their vulnerability is NOT the most = difficult=20 organizing issue.  I know too many organizers in too many = industries for=20 whom this is the case.
 
And certainly immigrant = workers have been=20 at the forefront of labor organizing over the past decade.  I will = go=20 beyond my claim that we have entered a new era-- a new citizenship = regime, with=20 consequences for organizing-- and also suggest that closer examination = of these=20 movements will support the conclusion that much of this organizing = energy was=20 unleashed when, due to the amnesty provisions of the 1986 immigration = law,=20 millions of previously undocumented workers achieved legal residency=20 status.  If this is so, then here is a case of the labor movement = drawing=20 strength from its convergence with a social movement toward expanded=20 citizenship. 
 
Back to the strawberries.  No leader has been more outspoken = and=20 effective in advocating for the rights of immigrants in the halls of = government=20 than the UFW's legendary Dolores Huerta.   On the ground in = the=20 Central Coast, however, the union confronts a dilemma.  If it = breaks the=20 conspiracy of silence maintained by the industry, the INS, the union and = the=20 local political leaders, it risks provoking and perhaps undermining the = power of=20 the boycott and the support of public leaders in anti-immigrant = climate. =20 Consequently the union has done what Hector suggests in his book must be = done--=20 try to get them not to think of themselves as immigrants but as = workers. =20
 
Certainly the labor movement is in a bind, as immigrant workers = undeniably=20 intensify wage competition and undermine unions' labor market = power.  And=20 visible public advocacy around the issue of rights for undocumented = workers in=20 the context of an organizing campaign may well attract exactly the INS=20 enforcement that the workers fear. 
 
But citizenship status is a central reality, and more than ever the = central=20 reality for these workers.  So I conclude that unless and until it = has a=20 strong public stance speaking to the oppression of undocumented workers, = no=20 union can claim to speak for them, nor hope to make major strides in = organizing=20 this workforce. 
 
That's why I believe that we need a labor voice on behalf of = undocumented=20 workers, saying "Our contribution to the wealth of this society = gives us=20 rights.  Legalize us."   Instead, however, the = AFL-CIO=20 maintains its support for strengthened employer sanctions. 
 
Consider the contradiction, and the irony: the labor movement's new = leadership stakes everything-- the number one organizing priority for a=20 leadership whose highest priority is organizing-- on organizing a = largely=20 undocumented workforce.... while simultaneously calling for tougher = employer=20 sanctions, the main stumbling-block to organizing that very same=20 workforce.
 
I am not saying that the = AFL-CIO's weak=20 stance on immigrant rights is entirely to blame for the current setback = in =20 strawberries.  But it hasn't helped.
 
In addition to the issue = of employer=20 sanctions, there are other ways as well that the AFL-CIO, the UFW, and = other=20 unions could identify the labor movement with immigrant interests.  = I will=20 talk in the next posting about one of these-- embracing and helping to = lead the=20 citizenship movement now making its way through the institutions toward = full=20 political empowerment.  But first I'll finish this posting with a = final=20 piece of heresy.
 
Again and again in the past year or so, I have heard organizers = whispering=20 about the need for a "good bracero program"-- a guest worker = program=20 which would not lead to permanent residence, but which would assure = workers of=20 the same basic rights enjoyed by other U.S. workers, the most important = being=20 the right to organize. 
 
Let's think through the options very = carefully, and=20 see what questions remain.  There are three.  Intensified = enforcement,=20 lax enforcement, and what I'll call a good guestworker = program.
 
First, intensified enforcement-- that's = what we have=20 today, and besides failed organizing campaigns there are bodies in the = desert to=20 attest to the effects of that agenda.  For at least the next decade = (before=20 Mexico's slowing rate of workforce growth POSSIBLY relieves the pressure = to=20 emigrate) this can only result in more bodies in the desert, and = increased=20 criminalization and reduced organizability of a vital part of our = workforce,=20 folks whose union spirit is an essential ingredient for any labor = movement=20 revival in the U.S.   Does anyone see a way that the labor = movement=20 can organize explosively (because that's what we need) under these = conditions in=20 agriculture, food processing, food services, textiles, & small=20 manufacturing?  Especially with labor's leaders backing the=20 crackdown?
 
Second, lax enforcement, perhaps someday = followed by=20 another amnesty.  In other words, return to the good old = days.  Not a=20 bad public position to take, except that our inability to make it happen = will=20 sooner or later undermine the confidence of immigrants.  Does = anyone see=20 this as a viable option?  
 
Third, a "guestworker reform = agenda". =20 Here's the question.  Is it possible to establish a good = guestworker=20 program which protects the rights of workers, allows them to transition = into=20 legal permanent residency status according to the same pathways that now = exist,=20 and makes them easier rather than harder to organize?  Union opposition has meant that these programs have always been = entirely=20 defined by employers, the INS, and elites in the country of = origin.  What=20 would a union-defined guestworker program look like? 
 
More specifically, is it possible to imagine an = accord with=20 strawberry growers in which the current workforce is transitioned into a = good=20 guestworker status? 
 
Also, what contribution might such a program make to rural = development in=20 Mexico???
 
Paul Johnston
Citizenship Project
johnston@cruzio.com
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60--