AFL-CIO Sells Out Those They "Represent"

[Night Strike]

The Chamber of Commerce is just as guilty in this, but as we're constantly told, they don't represent the "middle class" anyway.

(Washington, D.C. April 1, 2013) America’s largest labor union, the AFL-CIO, has reportedly cut a deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an immigration package that would legalize about 12 million illegal aliens and admit anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 low-skilled “guest” workers annually, all of whom may become permanent additions to our labor force through a pathway to citizenship.

Moreover, under the AFL-CIO/Chamber agreement, this annual influx of new, low-skilled “guest” workers would come in addition to more than 800,000 guest workers who enter our labor market each year and the addition of approximately 12 million illegal aliens to the U.S. workforce—all despite historically high levels of unemployment.

“This deal is a monumental betrayal by organized labor of American workers,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “The AFL-CIO is gambling the future of the American middle class on the false assumption that our economy can support this huge swell in low-skill workers and that the federal government will end the flow of illegal immigration that results in illegal workers undercutting wages and jobs opportunities for U.S. workers.”

Finally, the AFL-CIO is also betting that big business will abide by this agreement. Business lobbyists are already beginning to say that the new guest worker program sanctioned by the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce isn’t big enough. These business interests will no doubt lobby hard to significantly increase the size of this new guest worker program—whether during debate in the Senate, in the House, or the moment after it is enacted.

“The AFL-CIO has consistently failed to stand with American workers who have lost jobs and wages to illegal aliens. Now it is further undermining American workers by getting behind a deal that would allow tens of thousands of ‘guest’ workers and millions of illegal aliens to compete for virtually every job in the United States, all without any assurance that millions more illegal aliens will not flood into the labor force,” said Stein.

“As we have seen in the past, the interests of union leaders do not necessarily represent those of rank and file members. As American workers, unionized and non-unionized, consider the ramifications of mass amnesty and massive increases in guest workers, there is likely to be significant resistance to a deal that would further endanger our already struggling middle class,” Stein said.

“Barely half of working age adults in the United States with less than a high school diploma are currently participating in the labor force,” Stein noted. “In agreeing to a deal that allows for new flows of low-skill workers, America’s largest labor union is essentially ensuring that millions of less educated Americans will never be productive members of our society.”

http://www.fairus.org/news/afl-cio-cuts-deal-on-immigration-sells-out-american-workers

[Nobunaga]

The Chamber of Commerce is just as guilty in this, but as we're constantly told, they don't represent the "middle class" anyway.

(Washington, D.C. April 1, 2013) America’s largest labor union, the AFL-CIO, has reportedly cut a deal with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an immigration package that would legalize about 12 million illegal aliens and admit anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 low-skilled “guest” workers annually, all of whom may become permanent additions to our labor force through a pathway to citizenship.

Moreover, under the AFL-CIO/Chamber agreement, this annual influx of new, low-skilled “guest” workers would come in addition to more than 800,000 guest workers who enter our labor market each year and the addition of approximately 12 million illegal aliens to the U.S. workforce—all despite historically high levels of unemployment.

“This deal is a monumental betrayal by organized labor of American workers,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “The AFL-CIO is gambling the future of the American middle class on the false assumption that our economy can support this huge swell in low-skill workers and that the federal government will end the flow of illegal immigration that results in illegal workers undercutting wages and jobs opportunities for U.S. workers.”

Finally, the AFL-CIO is also betting that big business will abide by this agreement. Business lobbyists are already beginning to say that the new guest worker program sanctioned by the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce isn’t big enough. These business interests will no doubt lobby hard to significantly increase the size of this new guest worker program—whether during debate in the Senate, in the House, or the moment after it is enacted.

“The AFL-CIO has consistently failed to stand with American workers who have lost jobs and wages to illegal aliens. Now it is further undermining American workers by getting behind a deal that would allow tens of thousands of ‘guest’ workers and millions of illegal aliens to compete for virtually every job in the United States, all without any assurance that millions more illegal aliens will not flood into the labor force,” said Stein.

“As we have seen in the past, the interests of union leaders do not necessarily represent those of rank and file members. As American workers, unionized and non-unionized, consider the ramifications of mass amnesty and massive increases in guest workers, there is likely to be significant resistance to a deal that would further endanger our already struggling middle class,” Stein said.

“Barely half of working age adults in the United States with less than a high school diploma are currently participating in the labor force,” Stein noted. “In agreeing to a deal that allows for new flows of low-skill workers, America’s largest labor union is essentially ensuring that millions of less educated Americans will never be productive members of our society.”

http://www.fairus.org/news/afl-cio-cuts-deal-on-immigration-sells-out-american-workers

A healthy new crop of Democratic voters and union members. Helps Obama, helps the unions.... screw the American schmucks. What's the problem?

[Symmetry]

If they become citizens after working legally in the US, they would be American too, surely?

[Symmetry]

Also, this gives a bit more nuance:

The most politically juicy aspect of immigration reform has to do with the people who are already here. Those who either sneaked across the border or overstayed visas and have been living and working in the United States for some time. But even if consensus is reached on this issue, there's still the important question of future immigration. The Gang of Eight Senators working on reform took the interesting tack of directly asking the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to negotiate on this question interest group to interest group, and over the weekend those business and labor groups reached a deal on how to allow nonseasonal low-skilled migrant workers into the country in the future.

Specifically, a new class of visas—W visas—will be created. These are being described by many in the press as visas for guest workers, but labor sources don't like that characterization and would say instead that W visas are an alternative to guest workers. The key bullets about W visas are as follows:

-Recipients would be allowed to petition for permanent status after completing their term.

-Recipients are allowed to switch jobs while in the United States.

-There will be at most 20,000 W visas in the first year, 35,000 in the second year, 55,000 in the third, and 75,000 in the fourth.

-Starting in the fifth year, the number of W visas will be capped at 200,000, but the actual number will be determined by a new Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Conditions based on labor market conditions.

-In terms of allocating the visas, priority will be given to occupations experiencing certified shortages as per the BILMC.
If labor market conditions are weak, there could be as few as 20,000 W visas in any given year.

-Importantly permissible wages for W visa holders will be set to try to ensure no negative impact on U.S.-born workers in the same occupational category, which is a fairly tight constraint. Wages will be the greater of the actual wage level paid by the employer to individuals with similar levels of experience or the "prevailing wage" for the occupational category in question.

All things considered, I would broadly classify this as a case of labor getting what it wants. The conceptual underpinnings of the system are very similar to what Ray Marshall has outlined at the union-friendly Economic Policy Institute over the years, and reading between the lines a bit, a key bottom line is that businesses can't use W visas to undercut building trades union wage levels. The Chamber of Commerce is, I think, willing to be happy with this largely because they're only compromising relative to some fantasy plan. A path to citizenship for the existing stock of unauthorized migrants is good for business, allowing more high-skilled immigrants is good for business, and creating this new category of nonseasonal work visas is also good for business even if it's restricted in some ways. My main concern with the plan is that if we're putting our faith in this Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Conditions, then I don't understand why we're not allowing them to decide that 250,000 or 350,000 or 450,000 W visas is the right number if the circumstances warrant it.
The main question that's not answered by the information currently available is what does this petitioning for permanent status process look like. Petition whom? With the decision made on what basis?

What's in the Business-Labor Deal on Immigration?

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds like immigration reform gone wrong.

[thegreekdog]

This is a really fascinating display of how government really works. It appears (I only read Symmetry's quoted language) that two special interest groups are looking to gain some benefits from this plan. I can only assume that the immigrants will benefit too, but I have a bad feeling that if the two special interest groups don't benefit, the immigrants will be sent packing.

Also, does anyone care at all that this is how the government did this? Ignore the partisan issues associated with this - do you care that the government basically told two non-government groups to decide immigration policy for the federal government?

[Symmetry]

This is a really fascinating display of how government really works. It appears (I only read Symmetry's quoted language) that two special interest groups are looking to gain some benefits from this plan. I can only assume that the immigrants will benefit too, but I have a bad feeling that if the two special interest groups don't benefit, the immigrants will be sent packing.

Also, does anyone care at all that this is how the government did this? Ignore the partisan issues associated with this - do you care that the government basically told two non-government groups to decide immigration policy for the federal government?

I tried to find a source I'd considered reliable in the past, and one that was not uncritical of potentials problems.

[thegreekdog]

This is a really fascinating display of how government really works. It appears (I only read Symmetry's quoted language) that two special interest groups are looking to gain some benefits from this plan. I can only assume that the immigrants will benefit too, but I have a bad feeling that if the two special interest groups don't benefit, the immigrants will be sent packing.

Also, does anyone care at all that this is how the government did this? Ignore the partisan issues associated with this - do you care that the government basically told two non-government groups to decide immigration policy for the federal government?

I tried to find a source I'd considered reliable in the past, and one that was not uncritical of potentials problems.

I occasionally enjoy Slate and this would be an example.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is a really fascinating display of how government really works. It appears (I only read Symmetry's quoted language) that two special interest groups are looking to gain some benefits from this plan. I can only assume that the immigrants will benefit too, but I have a bad feeling that if the two special interest groups don't benefit, the immigrants will be sent packing.

Also, does anyone care at all that this is how the government did this? Ignore the partisan issues associated with this - do you care that the government basically told two non-government groups to decide immigration policy for the federal government?

Hence, "interest group politics."

[Symmetry]

This is a really fascinating display of how government really works. It appears (I only read Symmetry's quoted language) that two special interest groups are looking to gain some benefits from this plan. I can only assume that the immigrants will benefit too, but I have a bad feeling that if the two special interest groups don't benefit, the immigrants will be sent packing.

Also, does anyone care at all that this is how the government did this? Ignore the partisan issues associated with this - do you care that the government basically told two non-government groups to decide immigration policy for the federal government?

I tried to find a source I'd considered reliable in the past, and one that was not uncritical of potentials problems.

I occasionally enjoy Slate and this would be an example.

Matt Yglesias is certainly a reporter I respect.

[spurgistan]

I don't think Yglesias would call himself a reporter. In fact I know he doesn't.

Also, put any studies that say the American economy can't handle a guest worker program here, plz. If not, it sounds like you're saying boo to legal workers adding to the American economy, which is a odd thing for somebody who likes the United States.

Also, given how there's no political traction in the US to deal with the issue of undocumented workers already working in the United States, asking a nominally left-wing interest group and a nominally right-wing interest group to hash out a scenario that might work makes sense to this guy. What's the alternative? Also, the FAIRUS quote makes liberal use of the slippery-slope fallacy.

[thegreekdog]

asking a nominally left-wing interest group and a nominally right-wing interest group to hash out a scenario that might work makes sense to this guy. What's the alternative?

Asking a nominally left-wing group of Congresspeople and a nominally right-wing group of Congresspeople to do their jobs and not leave matters of national policy to two special interest groups who have vested interests in the immigration debate to the exclusion of all other interest groups and the general public.

And spurgistan, who I generally respect, gives us another piece of evidence of the fucked up US government.

[Frigidus]

“This deal is a monumental betrayal by organized labor of American workers,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “The AFL-CIO is gambling the future of the American middle class on the false assumption that our economy can support this huge swell in low-skill workers and that the federal government will end the flow of illegal immigration that results in illegal workers undercutting wages and jobs opportunities for U.S. workers.”

Yup. Regardless of how you feel about our immigration policy, what's undeniable is that having a large number of undocumented non-citizens in the country only makes the unemployment situation works. The status quo is too profitable for businesses for it to be changed, but if there were an effort to fix the situation it would have to include some method of preventing any further illegal immigration from occurring.

[Night Strike]

There are approximately 30 million people in the US who are unemployed or no longer looking for work. Add more people who are in part time jobs and want full time. We don't need even more expansion of foreign, cheap labor coming to the US because there are plenty here who could be doing those jobs (if they weren't getting tens of thousands of dollars in handouts from the government).

[Symmetry]

There are approximately 30 million people in the US who are unemployed or no longer looking for work. Add more people who are in part time jobs and want full time. We don't need even more expansion of foreign, cheap labor coming to the US because there are plenty here who could be doing those jobs (if they weren't getting tens of thousands of dollars in handouts from the government).

If, as the scheme suggests, the permits will primarily be given to workers in areas where there is a shortage, what's the issue?

[BigBallinStalin]

In order to understand what effects increased immigration will have on the currently unemployed and underemployed, we have to understand why there is such un/underemployment in the first place.

It isn't simply a supply issue (i.e. more immigrants would cause increased/prevent 'American'--holding all else constant). It depends on the price, the demand, and changes in institutions (rules of the game).

Influential causes and concerns:
1. Government subsidizing unemployment (UE).
2. Government labor laws, which price people from a job. (Forced joining of labor unions, lack of right-to-work opportunity, minimum wage, etc.).

3. Failure to disaggregate the UE data.
--i.e. the unemployment is particular to 'circumstances of time and place'. It may be the case that new influxes of immigrants into particular areas won't affect current UE levels.

4. Permenant change in the structure of business. (i.e. many businesses may have become more efficient with less workers, thus will remain reluctant to hire especially if....

5. the uncertainty in the US continues (re: Federal Reserve policies and consequences, significant changes in healthcare provision (uncertain future change in prices), significant changes in banking and finance, etc.). In short, "regime uncertainty."

6. Changes in government spending (thus revealing a later misallocation of resources in sectors which the market wouldn't have bolstered so greatly).

7. and more, but that's enough for now.

[Symmetry]

I don't think Yglesias would call himself a reporter. In fact I know he doesn't.

Journalist?

[thegreekdog]

In order to understand what effects increased immigration will have on the currently unemployed and underemployed, we have to understand why there is such un/underemployment in the first place.

It isn't simply a supply issue (i.e. more immigrants would cause increased/prevent 'American'--holding all else constant). It depends on the price, the demand, and changes in institutions (rules of the game).

Influential causes and concerns:
1. Government subsidizing unemployment (UE).
2. Government labor laws, which price people from a job. (Forced joining of labor unions, lack of right-to-work opportunity, minimum wage, etc.).

3. Failure to disaggregate the UE data.
--i.e. the unemployment is particular to 'circumstances of time and place'. It may be the case that new influxes of immigrants into particular areas won't affect current UE levels.

4. Permenant change in the structure of business. (i.e. many businesses may have become more efficient with less workers, thus will remain reluctant to hire especially if....

5. the uncertainty in the US continues (re: Federal Reserve policies and consequences, significant changes in healthcare provision (uncertain future change in prices), significant changes in banking and finance, etc.). In short, "regime uncertainty."

6. Changes in government spending (thus revealing a later misallocation of resources in sectors which the market wouldn't have bolstered so greatly).

7. and more, but that's enough for now.

I can boil that down some - Most unemployed Americans don't feel enough pain to take jobs that would otherwise be filled by immigrants (document or undocumented). Therefore, there is no supply to feed the demand. To fill the demand, incentivize the unemployed Americans to take these jobs (BBS's list probably) or legalize the illegal immigrants. I'm fine with either of those methods. I'm not fine with how our government went about making their decision in such a blatantly undemocratic/unrepublican way.

[BigBallinStalin]

I can boil that down some - Most unemployed Americans don't feel enough pain to take jobs that would otherwise be filled by immigrants (document or undocumented). Therefore, there is no supply to feed the demand. To fill the demand, incentivize the unemployed Americans to take these jobs (BBS's list probably) or legalize the illegal immigrants. I'm fine with either of those methods. I'm not fine with how our government went about making their decision in such a blatantly undemocratic/unrepublican way.

RE: underlined, that would be great, but unlikely, given the incompetence and self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats.

RE: bold, I'm with that.

RE: italicized, agreed, and unfortunately, that method is a large part of the political process, yet I hardly hear voters mention it.

[2dimes]

If you're legalizing immigrants can I get in on that? I'm willing to return to union membership.

[Symmetry]

In order to understand what effects increased immigration will have on the currently unemployed and underemployed, we have to understand why there is such un/underemployment in the first place.

It isn't simply a supply issue (i.e. more immigrants would cause increased/prevent 'American'--holding all else constant). It depends on the price, the demand, and changes in institutions (rules of the game).

Influential causes and concerns:
1. Government subsidizing unemployment (UE).
2. Government labor laws, which price people from a job. (Forced joining of labor unions, lack of right-to-work opportunity, minimum wage, etc.).

3. Failure to disaggregate the UE data.
--i.e. the unemployment is particular to 'circumstances of time and place'. It may be the case that new influxes of immigrants into particular areas won't affect current UE levels.

4. Permenant change in the structure of business. (i.e. many businesses may have become more efficient with less workers, thus will remain reluctant to hire especially if....

5. the uncertainty in the US continues (re: Federal Reserve policies and consequences, significant changes in healthcare provision (uncertain future change in prices), significant changes in banking and finance, etc.). In short, "regime uncertainty."

6. Changes in government spending (thus revealing a later misallocation of resources in sectors which the market wouldn't have bolstered so greatly).

7. and more, but that's enough for now.

I can boil that down some - Most unemployed Americans don't feel enough pain to take jobs that would otherwise be filled by immigrants (document or undocumented). Therefore, there is no supply to feed the demand. To fill the demand, incentivize the unemployed Americans to take these jobs (BBS's list probably) or legalize the illegal immigrants. I'm fine with either of those methods. I'm not fine with how our government went about making their decision in such a blatantly undemocratic/unrepublican way.

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, I should work with a lobbying organization. Voters can be so ignorant--and reasonably so. Let them clamor and yell about politician X over politician Y, and either politician will give me discretion over shaping laws which affect my clients' organizations/businesses. Lovely arrangement.

As a lobbyist, I'd further agree with any voter who expresses faith in the (mostly) self-less and optimal political process and who scoffs at the mentioning of "crony capitalism" and "free markets." Haha, what a backwards system of governance!

[thegreekdog]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

[Symmetry]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, yes, so very 'democratic'! That word has lost its meaning on some.