President Honors Chavez
- Thread starter Glassfan
- Start date
Exacly. Just like this Chavez was doing. In Sweden there exists more or less secret but uncovered transcripts of the right pushing for mass immigration as a way of busting unions and destroying the welfare state because they recognised no swede would vote against it, not even on the liberal right.
But if you actually force immigrants to join unions and/or tightly regulate the labor market then it's not really a huge problem anymore. If a problem at all.
But if you actually force immigrants to join unions and/or tightly regulate the labor market then it's not really a huge problem anymore. If a problem at all.
Yes they do, as prominent Democratic economists like Paul Krugman admit.
Immigrants are much poorer than the general population, and thus if you have a strong welfare system and grant them the same rights as any American worker, they'll automatically be eligible for substantial transfers. Surely you can see why this system is not compatible with mass immigration. You either severely restrict immigration (or immigrants' rights) or you severely limit the extent of the welfare state (as it is limited at present in the US, I'm just saying you can't expand it and adopt a liberal immigration policy at the same time).
We don't have to focus immigration on the poor, like we do now. That's a choice. All nations place some restrictions on immigration. The American habit of allowing in the poor and not the non-poor is the problem, not the immigration numbers themselves.
Also, if we unionized these people, they would be out of poverty and self sufficient all that much sooner. welfare dependency has 2 parts; people who can't work, and people who do work, but can't make enough money to be self sufficient. So unionization is major anti-welfare program.
At any rate, in the US welfare will never be generous. And so is never a discouragement to work.
Also, if we unionized these people, they would be out of poverty and self sufficient all that much sooner. welfare dependency has 2 parts; people who can't work, and people who do work, but can't make enough money to be self sufficient. So unionization is major anti-welfare program.
At any rate, in the US welfare will never be generous. And so is never a discouragement to work.
It's true that accepting more poor immigrants compared to non-poor ones is a choice. But it's a choice popular with latinos (who are poor compared to the general US population), and up to now defended by Democrats. To severely restrict the immigration of poor people in order to assure an expanded welfare state would put the Democrats at odds with the latino voters, and that was the point I was making (in other words, I don't see the near-monopoly Democrats have on the latino vote lasting for too long).
The perhaps unsavory union-organizing methods employed by the United Farm Workers were fairly tame by most historical standards. Union and anti-union violence - threats, beatings, bombings, sabotage and murder - especially against labor organizers, strikebreakers and scabs, is well-documented in the history books. I think it's fair to say that the UFW's methods were less violent and corrupt than that of the Teamsters or Mineworkers and their Union Thugs on one side, or the Owners and Bosses with their frame-jobs and bullying by Pinkertons and Goon Squads on the other.
There are neccessarily strong-arm methods to organizing a mass of disadvantaged, frightened workers in the face of management's union-busting activities. It's not pretty. But Chavez's activities were ultimately successful, and the farmworkers today have benefitted greatly.
Nobody is perfect - not Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi or King. Everyone has flaws. When we judge someone "good", it must be with this understanding.
There are neccessarily strong-arm methods to organizing a mass of disadvantaged, frightened workers in the face of management's union-busting activities. It's not pretty. But Chavez's activities were ultimately successful, and the farmworkers today have benefitted greatly.
Nobody is perfect - not Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi or King. Everyone has flaws. When we judge someone "good", it must be with this understanding.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What's the technical distinction between a "thug" and a "goon"?
Raise wages. Problem solved.
Uh. What? Migrants can't be union members?
Sure they can. But if all of them become union members, on equal footing as the rest of the workers, either wages fall or the union will have a lot of unemployed members.
Why do you think United Farmworkers wanted to restrict immigration?
If you support open immigtation, then it would seem you would also support unions, so as to protect against the abuses when the supply of labor is high enough to be more exploitable by collective capital. Now, I can see where someone that starts pro-union might not be for open immigration, but someone that starts pro-open immigration should probably want some protections for those immigrants.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
It certainly makes sense for those who support open immigration to also support the right of workers to form or join voluntary unions. It does not follow that they should support unions that use coercion to increase their membership and political power.
The problem back in the 70s when Chavez was organizing, was that the never-ending flow of new field workers from accross the border - often undocumented illegals, were a natural source of scabs. Owners would gladly kick the union workers off their fields if they could get scabs to to the job for a fraction of the cost. So for unionization to work, the UFW had to engage in policies we might think of as counterintuitive.
And so, Cesar Chavez's accomplishments are therefor all the more impressive.
Why not?
One does not follow from the other......
The differences of opinion here may be due to undefined perspectives.
For the political liberal/Democrat, relaxation of immigration enforcement as a civil rights concept, and unionization as a guarantor of quality of life, are not conflicting principles.
To the recently arrived immigrant worker - especially an illegal - any job opportunity is to be siezed. To join a union as an illegal is problematic. Even a Green Carder might join the scabs to grab the pay and return to his family in Mexico or further South.
To those like Chavez, desperate to organize the workers so as to have a strong position from which to negotiate better labor conditions, difficult choices have to be made concerning the availability of workers due to immigration.
For the land owners, playing off the illegals and recent migrants against the UFW is a no-brainer.
To the young, educated adults on these forums, perhaps inexperienced in the brutal actuallities of labor strife, and discussing the issues academically, these events may seem simpler than they really were in the heat and sweat of the California fields 50 years ago.
For the political liberal/Democrat, relaxation of immigration enforcement as a civil rights concept, and unionization as a guarantor of quality of life, are not conflicting principles.
To the recently arrived immigrant worker - especially an illegal - any job opportunity is to be siezed. To join a union as an illegal is problematic. Even a Green Carder might join the scabs to grab the pay and return to his family in Mexico or further South.
To those like Chavez, desperate to organize the workers so as to have a strong position from which to negotiate better labor conditions, difficult choices have to be made concerning the availability of workers due to immigration.
For the land owners, playing off the illegals and recent migrants against the UFW is a no-brainer.
To the young, educated adults on these forums, perhaps inexperienced in the brutal actuallities of labor strife, and discussing the issues academically, these events may seem simpler than they really were in the heat and sweat of the California fields 50 years ago.
