César Chávez, 2.0

In the wake of the immigration disaster, this is very interesting:

A center representing immigrant workers who do temporary jobs announced its affiliation with the AFL-CIO Thursday, becoming the first day labor center to act on an agreement between the largest U.S. federation of unions and a network representing immigrant laborers.

The Centro Legal de la Raza hopes the association with the AFL-CIO's Alameda County Central Labor Council will help improve working conditions for the immigrant workers it represents. Like other day laborers who solicit jobs by standing on corners and waiting for employers to pick them up, these workers often have little recourse when an employer refuses to pay or expects them to work under dangerous conditions.

Fundamentally and abstractly, this is great news; an abused constituency of hard workers are getting protection and a voice. That's at the core of the labor movement. Right now, there are 80 worker centers nationwide with over 140,000 workers, and with no immigration deal in place, there is going to be a growing number of these type of workers, and a growing number of employers looking to abuse and underpay them. Getting them organized can help them end the horrible employer conditions under which they have to work, and it creates a whole new field that unions can organize.

But that growth in workers is also part of why this is such a two-sided proposition. The AFL-CIO opposed the immigration deal that collapsed this week in the Senate, with three main concerns:

It lacks an effective and reliable employment-verification system.

The penalties and sanctions for employers who violate the law are weak.

The new guest worker provisions will provide further incentive for employers to drive down wages and benefit standards for all who work in the U.S. construction industry.

Additionally, they objected to the guest worker provisions that let companies bring in high tech and high skilled workers at wages much below prevailing ones in the area, as they continue to layoff fairly paid American workers. But the first three issues are the ones that apply to this situation.

Basically, the AFL-CIO is taking a stand against the hiring of undocumented immigrants at bottom barrel poverty-level wages, and want greater penalties on employers that do so. However, they are very sure to point out that they are pro-path to citizenship, because it is the right and humane thing to do. So what you have is not opposition to a bigger workforce, but opposition to an unfair work environment, which is where I think a lot of Americans are.

But this unionization of the work center is interesting because until some immigration deal is brought up again and actually agreed on (don't hold your breath on that being any time soon), the AFL-CIO will be accepting and representing the undocumented workers they believe are driving down wages and taking jobs by working for so little. This would be a paradox if not for the fact that the AFL-CIO is apparently taking the stance that it is employers' fault for paying such substandard wages, and they are sympathetic with the workers who are forced to work for them. And I think that is the best way to look at it; after all, despite whatever verbal vomit the right wing echo chamber may spew out, undocumented workers are just trying to do anything they can to better their and their families' economic conditions and lifestyles. And if working for substandard wages is all they can do with their lack of knowledge of the language and the poor to non-existent schools in their home countries, then that's what they'll do.

So here's what I take from this: the AFL-CIO sees that there is no hope of a mass worker registration that would help force employers to pay living wages, nor is there any hope for any real penalties for hiring undocumented workers. So, they are going to take the situation into their own hands and work to represent these workers, fighting to raise their wages while evening the playing field for native born workers, all the while growing the union ranks. Win Win Win.

Employee Free Choice Act: Thoughts on yesterday

Tuesday, a majority of the Senate voted to invoke cloture and bring to the floor a simple majority vote on a bill that seeks to empower people through a simple majority. Ironic and cyclical, I know.

The Employee Free Choice Act went down 51-48. Every Democrat (including Lieberman, perish the thought) voted in favor of this crucial workers' rights bill. Every Republican, save the commendable Arlen Specter, voted against a bill that would do the following:

• Grant union representation to a group of workers that has signaled a majority want that representation, instead of subjecting them to mandatory anti-union indoctrination sessions and termination threats, which they often follow through on
  
• Stiffen the currently laughable fines and penalties on employers who violate NLRB regulations
• Actually force employers to negotiate with recognized unions on first contracts, or face an arbitration panel

So, basically, the Republicans said:

• We only believe in democracy when it benefits our corporate donors, not when it reflects the will of a people we don't care about
• Please, continue to break the laws if you are a corporate constituent. Of course, if you're a poor Mexican trying to better your and your family's lives, then the rule of law is sacred (since you don't give campaign donations)
• When all else fails, just break the law another way

Hyperbole aside, there are a few main points and narratives to take from this:

1. Great job by labor, the AFL-CIO in particular, in drumming up a massive wave of support and news coverage for this bill. They were at the forefront of grassroots and online activism that spawned: 50,000 phone calls to the Senate, 156,000 faxes and e-mail messages and 220,000 postcards, including 120,000 delivered to the Senate last week.

They helped put the EFCA on the national radar, and really draw a line in the sand, and to (holding my nose) quote the Decider himself: either you're with us or you're against us. Purported "moderate Republicans" like Susan Collins and Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith, all facing super tough re-election battles in 2008, just gifted some big issue ads for their opposition next fall.

2. Even though four Democrats didn't sponsor the bill, all of them voted for it. Surely they felt the pressure from the people who help fund their campaigns and get out the vote for them every sixth November. Regardless, it's good to see the aye vote. I'd commend them further, but I'm highly cynical because:

3. As I was angrily pondering while at work and as David Sirota more eloquently put into words, this bill was, for all intents and cloture purposes, dead on arrival. There was no way that the necessary ten Republicans were going to cross the aisle and vote for cloture on this bill. The only way this thing was going to pass was adding it to a spending bill, or a bill that no Republican could oppose without inviting political peril.

Did they want it to fail? Maybe. Why? Perhaps so every corporate Democrat could "vote for" this bill, seemingly add to their populist credentials, with no consequences. It's the best of both worlds. Lobbyist and PACs won't be pissed, because it was largely a procedural vote, and they can ring a hollow populist call on the next campaign trail. Or maybe to help contribute to a larger Democratic populist narrative for 2008.

Now the bill is dead, it seems, until at least the next legislative session, or even 2009. I hope this wasn't a case of cynical politics, because even if it means a few more votes for Democrats, the core mission of the party, the reason why true blue Dems run and people donate and work tirelessly for in the first place... every day, that will be compromised. People will lose their jobs for speaking up, others will live in fear. And sixty million people will be without the union representation that they so crave.