Unions Seek to Control the Labor Supply (10/5/2007)

“The challenge is to build institutions that conform to reality but lessen its ill effects. “We can’t revert to the fantasy that we can just turn the tap off,” Professor Gordon was reported to have said. “We have to engage with the question, not abdicate the debate to restrictionists on the one hand and a corporate-designed guest worker program on the other.”

In her article “Transnational Labor Citizenship,” published last spring in the Southern California Law Review, Professor Gordon proposed linking the right to immigrate not to a job offer from an employer but to membership in a “cross-border worker organization,” in other words, let the unions be the gatekeeper for immigration. Under her proposal, immigrant workers could work in the U.S. legally, but only after agreeing not to undercut other workers by accepting substandard pay or job conditions, and of course, only after agreeing to join a union and pay dues. The unions would enforce the agreement and protect members’ rights here and in their home countries. Of course, her proposal rests on the fantasy that unions are never corrupt, and never abuse worker rights. This year, in United Farm Workers, 33 ALRB No. 2, the ALRB found the UFW guilty of violating worker rights by failing to give workers sufficient notice of their right to object portions of their dues spent for union activities other than representing the workers, a violation that the union has been guilty of before.

In 1980, the ALRB found that it was illegal to the union to require workers to pay for its political activities or lose their jobs. In 1985, the UFW was forced to settle with workers who objected to being force to pay money into a UFW political fund, including over $10,000 to a worker who the UFW had caused to be fired. In 2004, the UFW paid $105,000 to settle claims by 100 Coastal Berry workers after it caused them to be fired when they objected to being forced to pay for the union’s political activities. According to the New York Times, there are “persuasive” examples that support the creation of multinational unions. The Times reported that the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), an agricultural workers’ union, signed a contract in 2004 to protect thousands of Mexican guest workers in North Carolina. In 2005, it opened an office in Monterrey, Mexico, to further its organizing efforts and defend its members from abusive recruiters there. The article fails to mention that the future of this effort remains in doubt after the murder of a leading FLOC organizer in Mexico. Remarkably, the Times touts the agreement between the UFW and Global Horizons, the first nationwide contract covering guest workers. It provides employer-paid medical care, a seniority system and a grievance procedure to ensure that employers comply with the law. However, Global Horizons has not been the dream that the UFW promised:

· In 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor imposed a three year ban on Global Horizons providing agricultural guest worker labor because the Company failed to comply with a settlement agreement in a case arising out of alleged unpaid wages.

· Global Horizons has had its Washington labor contractor license revoked.

· Global Horizons is suing a California grower, claiming that the grower terminated the guest workers in order to save money by using local farm labor contractors who allegedly hired undocumented workers. The grower claims that it had to terminate Global Horizons because its workers failed to meet quality standards.

· In a recent jury trial, Global Horizons’ President testified that Thai workers work harder than Mexican workers. On September 28, 2007, the jury found that Global Horizons discriminated against Mexican workers, and awarded $317,000 in damages.

Unions are getting on board with the concept of controlling worker entry, likely because of the potential dues income that they can realize. As the Times reported, John Sweeney, A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, attended the annual convention of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network.

COUNSEL TO MANAGEMENT:

As the Democratic Party gains increasing control in Congress, employers must be aware that an enforcement based immigration reform is not the only threat to U.S. economic security. Another alternative is a guest worker program controlled by unions that makes union membership necessary to enter the United States. The unions want control, no matter how they get it. They want to deprive workers of the right to choose whether or not to join a union by eliminating elections, and by making unions the gatekeepers to the U.S. All employers should work with their industry associations to fight for fair immigration reform that protects immigrant workers’ right to earn a living, and to choose whether or not they want to join a union.

The goal of this article is to provide employers with current labor and employment law information. The contents should neither be interpreted as, nor construed as legal advice or opinion. The reader should consult with Saqui & Raimondo at (831) 443-7100 in Salinas, or (916) 782-8555 in Sacramento for individual responses to questions or concerns regarding any given situation.