NY Says: Health Care For All

    It never ceases to amaze me how powerful the health care industry lobby is. Otherwise, how do you explain the 45 million uninsured Americans, the millions more under-insured and the crazy 1.8 trillion dollars we spend on health care (15 percent of GDP)--and still we have no national health insurance? This is a scandal.

    In today's New York Times, yet another piece of evidence for the case for national health insurance (or, better understood, Medicare For All). The New York Times has a front-page story on the massive increase in health care costs that New York will face in the near future because of health care coverage for government workers. New York City government will see its health care costs quintuple to at least $5 billion and perhaps $10 billion, according to the story.

    The issue is framed in light of the recent transit strike. And this is an obvious warning, intended or not, to public employee unions--your health care coverage is at risk. What we saw happening in the transit strike will happen to firefighters, teachers and other public workers--your employers will demand health care concessions and, if you go out on strike, the mayor or the governor will call you greedy or, perhaps, "thuggish" (the billionaire mayor's favorite phrase). Those politicians will pit you against the rest of the public, most of which will not enjoy the kind of health care coverage public employees have. It will be ugly.

    So, start now, I say: the labor movement must put an immediate revolution in health care on the agenda in 2006. It's as important as new organizing because (a) if unions are seen as a key component in bringing real health care to the uninsured it can only help organizing and (b) it's not going to be a big step forward if unions can organize new workers but not deliver decent health care coverage.

Comments

[Marc]

Too bad nobody realized this was a problem back in the 90's, when Hillary tried to put through a national health care progam. Her ideas were resoundingly denounced as radical and totally unnecessary.

Were Bill and Hillary just way ahead of their time? Has America finally awakened to the fact that our health care system is a failure, where making a profit is more important then providing care, or insuring citizens?

There doesn't seem to be any point in preaching to the choir, I am for a universal/single payer health care system in the US, but before that can be accomplished, it is important to point out that the decline in our health care system, and increase in costs, is a result of our own doing.

It is principally a result of unions along with our political leaders, on both the right and the left, in encouraging illegal immigration to benefit their own selfish needs. The unions and liberal legislators to expand their power bases, and ensure they stay in power, and conservative legislators seeking to provide an endless supply of cheap labor to their constituents.

That is why our health care system is in a shambles, with hospitals and emergency room closing everyday. That is why health care costs are skyrocketing, and millions of businesses are dropping health insurance coverage for their employees, or moving their operations overseas. US businesses can no longer afford to pay for the health care costs of illegal immigrants, mandated by the US government and condoned by union leaders.

Every were we look, and most notably in California, illegal immigrants seem to have more rights then US citizens. That is just plain wrong.

If the unions are really concerned with improving the plight of the working class, and maintain the benefits and wages earned over the past hundred years, it's time union leaders resoundlingly denounced the flood of illegal immigrants, willing to work for substandard wages and benefits, into this county.

[John A. Joslin]

You're a beauty , pal.
1) It may seem to you that you're suffering in the "rights " dept. ,but do a little investigation on your own. Find ONE so-called illegal person in the United States that has more rights than you do & post your findings here . We'll just go on about our dailylives until the report is in , if you don't mind. It's just plain dumb, in my book, to mistake what "seems " to be happening for what is actually going on . Does that seem cruel to you ?
2) Hilary's health-care plan , whatever it was, was NOT a single -payer National Health Care proposal. It was a cobbled together mess of pottage that ,well,..come to think of it .....was probably even more tangled up in the idea stage than our country's confusing new drug plan for senior citizens is in reality !... It certainly had ZERO to do with nudging our clunker of a system an inch away from the traditional "Healthy Profits" arrangement.

3) Oh hell, I think I've been suckered. You're probably a Clinton.

[Marc]

You're the beauty! I didn't say that illegal aliens "have" more rights then US citizens, I said they "seem" to have more rights. Check the definition in the dictionary.

The fact that illegal immigrants, who have broken the law by entering the US, have any rights at all, is the real crime, and what all US citizens should be up in arms about.

And as far as Hillary's plan, I never stated that her plan was a good plan or a bad plan. I really didn't know much about it. I was even one of those that dismissed it.

I wasn't arguing the merits of her plan. My point of the statement, which if you look again,was in the form of a question, was simply to indicate that, had we as a nation recognized the problem as early as Hillary "seemed" to have(I don't know if she really forsaw the crisis building or simply was pushing a liberal agenda), maybe the problem wouldn't have festered to the point that it is today.

But what do you know, you're probably here illegally.

[Afree Marquette]

From the cited NY Times article:

"The pay-as-you-go accounting method that New York now uses greatly understates the full obligation taxpayers have incurred because it does not include any benefits to be paid in the future."

Social Security and Medicare also use the pay-as-you-go method.

If the change towards truthful accounting is hard to swallow for
New York, imagine what it will be like for the nation.

[Phil]

Marc, the vast majority of the un- and under- insured are American citizens, so it really makes no sense when you say that the increases in healthcare costs are "principally a result of unions along with our political leaders, on both the right and the left, in encouraging illegal immigration." And don't forget, a lot of illegal immigrants pay social security and medicare payroll taxes for these 2 programs that they can't use, not to mention sales tax, fees, and property tax (through rent).

Beginning most famously with the Los Angeles SEIU Justice for Janitors campaign in the late 80s many of today's unions have a pragmatic way of dealing with the cheap, unorganized illegal immigrant workforce, and that is to organize them. And in the process they've reinvigorated progressive politics in the city and eventually replaced incumbents with labor sympathizers.

Alfree, I can't say this about medicare (and its no-bargaining clause with big pharma), but social security's actually in pretty good shape. It's been running a huge surplus for a while now and will continue to until around 2018, and once the surplus is depleted (sometime past 2042 or 2052 depending on how the economy does), without any tinkering it would still provide over 70/80% of promised benefits. (Also see this and this.) And medicare (lousy prescription drug plan aside) is itself the case for national health insurance (aka expanded medicare for all). Very roughly it's something like 5% of Medicare is used on administrative costs vs. a whopping 30% for the private insurance companies. So does the city use private health insurance for all its workers? That's pretty stupid. They could probably set up their own mini city-wide single payer system for a lot cheaper.

[D Flinchum]

Phil, you are correct that most un- and underinsured people are citizens but Marc is also correct in his view that part of the problem with health care costs is caused by "encouraging illegal immigration." I have spent a substantial amount of time over the last few years researching the effects of immigration - both legal and illegal - on US workers and their jobs and lives. Anybody who is truly interested in pushing single-payer or similar health care reform - as I believe Marc is since I've been to his website - has to also be interested in getting control of our borders. I realize that this is a politically incorrect view on this blog but it is factually correct nontheless and refusing to acknowledge it doesn't change that.

One out of every four uninsured people in the United States is an immigrant; and when legal immigrants receiving insurance through publicly funded Medicaid are factored in, almost half of immigrants either are uninsured or have insurance provided to them at taxpayers' expense. Since children born to illegal immigrants in the US are considered citizens, this problem is probably actually underestimated.

Federal laws requiring hospitals to treat anyone who enters an emergency room regardless of ability to pay have created an unfunded mandate for states and localities to fund health care for non-U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. Lack of insurance leads many immigrants to use hospital emergency rooms - which, as we know, are the most expensive source of health care - as their primary care provider. Emergency room visits have increased by 20 percent in the last decade, which, of course, increases health care costs whether insured or uninsured. In extreme cases in some hospitals, as much as two-thirds of total operating costs are for uncompensated care for illegal immigrants.

Uninsured US citizens are particularly hard hit in that hospitals often charge them more for services than they do the insured, whose insurance company may have negoiated special discount deals with medical providers. They also tend to be more rooted in the community and are easier for "bill collectors" to find. It's no wonder that a leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.

[Phil]

And I think I read somewhere that 4 out of 5 of those who've had to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills already have health insurance. Crappy plans abound.

I support reducing illegal immigration by ending the US corporate imperialism that has destroyed the livelihoods of so many people abroad. NAFTA flooded Mexico with US subsidized big agribusiness corn, devastated Mexican farmers, and lowered Mexican wages. WTO's done the same to other non-G8 countries like Korea. And then as John Perkins confesses there's the IMF and World Bank who act as large-scale predatory lenders who force third world countries into debt then demand cheap access to their land, labor, resources, and markets. And of course there's the long list of government topplings, wars, and proxy wars against those who fight against this. So there's no need to waste money on building walls or turning America into a police state (with the highest incarceration rate in the world maybe we're already there), we should just end imperialism, which is the main reason why so many desperate people come to America.

[Marc]

Thanks D!

I think the problem of illegal immigration is most acute in California (where I happen to live), and Arizona where the vast majority of illegal immigrants live. I see the effects everyday, in over crowded freeways, schools and hospitals, and continued closing of many emergency rooms.

I do believe that is changing, as California becomes desperately overcrowded, and many illegals move to other parts of the country to seek work. This is also apparent as more and more senators and represenatives, from the midwest, finally jump on the anti-illegal immigrant bandwagon.

Until we get grip on our border problem, employee wages and benefits will continue to be depressed, because of an over supply of labor, willing to work for next to nothing. Once we accomplish that task, then a more sensible health care policy will be easy to put into place.

And just as a side note (only remotely related to this topic) George Bush's guest worker program is a sham. We don't need more people to fill the so called 'jobs that Americans won't do', when they really mean to say 'jobs that Americans won't do at the substandard wages they want to pay'.

My father was a lifetime Teamster, and I was briefly also, while I hacked back in my college days. So it never ceases to amaze me why unions 'seem' to be in favor of illegal immigration (or at least they don't stand lock step against it), when in the end, illegal immigration and the depressed wages and benefits it brings, only hurts the hardest working Americans in this country.

[Tasini]

I find it fascinating that precisely what I wrote about today--how workers are being pitted against each other--comes into play here. It's not an issue of being politically incorrect to talk about illegal immigration and health care--it's an issue of being incorrect.

The vast majority of Americans who are uninsured are citizens, and many of them are white (primarily people who lost their jobs). If you shut off the border today, you would not change the overall crisis in health insurance.

The fact is that if we extended Medicare to every person in America, it would cost about 1 percent of GDP--as opposed to 15 percent now. That would solve the crisis without doing a single thing about illegal immigration.

Pointing to illegal immigrants as somehow in anyway responsible for the health care crisis is akin to saying same sex marriages are at the root of moral decline or trees cause air pollution.

[Joe Hill]

It seems every time the American ruling class screws up the economy, and seeks to resolve an incipient crisis on the backs of the workers, there is a tendency for native-born workers to blame the immigrants. Doesn't anyone get nervous when they realize they are joining with the most reactionary, anti-worker political forces in their anti-immigrant crusade?

Much of what is said by Marc in his posts is the position of the Minutemen, the KKK without sheets, who patrol the border armed, and who harass day laborers on the streets of major cities.

It is widely recognized by economists that US policy toward Mexico (NAFTA plus farm subsidies) has created a huge rural surplus population in Mexico, with on the order of one million persons a year forced to leave rural areas to avoid starvation, two-thirds migrating to urban areas within Mexico, and one-third migrating across the border to the US.

So if one wants to look for causes of the healthcare crisis in the US, one should not stop at the surface phenomena (crowded emergency rooms, unfunded mandates, etc.), and one should not blame the victims, but should look at who is profiting from the existing policies.

The American working class is now clearly in the position where our standard of living cannot be maintained, much less improved, unless we join in solidarity with workers in Mexico and the rest of the world to take on the giant corporations that are profiting off our sweat and blood.

[D Flinchum]

Political Correctness Run Wild!

Nobody is saying that illegal immigrants are THE SINGLE cause of the health care crisis in the US but anybody who doesn't admit the part that they do play is not dealing with reality. Comparing Marc with the Minutemen doesn't do anything for the facts at hand.

Also "doesn't anyone get nervous when they realize they are joining with the most reactionary, anti-worker political forces in their" open borders crusade? Big business, GWB, the WSJ, Grover Norquist, the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Home Builders, K Street, and on and on and on....... Do you think they support open borders out of some sense of solidarity with foreign workers? If so, check with our rank and file in New Orleans.

[M~]

Actually, its not about an open border policy. It's about social and economic justice. The migrant workers who come to the U.S. from Mexico want to make life better for themselves and their families. If we look at the causes of immigration; like NAFTA, the WTO, and corporate globalization; we are more likely to find an answer to the immigration "problem". These migrant workers have the same enemy as the working class in the U.S. - Corporate Controlled Imperialism - and we should join with them to fight it.

Also, historically, migrant workers have been villified. Looked at how the Irish were treated in the mid-1800's, and the Italians in the early 1900's. Why? Because they were "taking jobs Americans should have". Sound familiar. But it was on the backs of these workers that this country was built.

[Marc]

It wasn't my intention to get so far off topic, so I'll try to get it somewhat back on topic.

So M~, who are we to blame?

There are millions of unemployed Americans in this country, the majority of whom are willing to work. There are countless millions who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to countries that have a universal health care system and cheaper labor, and there are countless Americans who have lost their jobs to immigrants that will work for substandard wages.

Bare with me here, I'm not thinking too straight, having been throwing up all morning from food poisoning, I suspect (hope).

Sure immigrants built this country, and those who come here illegally just want to work and have a build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend them for that, and no doubt would do the same if I were in their shoes.

But that still doesn't answer the question, who's fault is it, and why is it my (the US) responsibility to provide these immigrants with a better life at my expense?

We have a health care system in the US that is flawed, and will only get worse as long as there are people who are willing to work for sub standard wages and benefits.

More and more Americans will continue to lose their health coverage, and could end up spending (losing) their lifes savings getting treatment should they get sick.

Remember the "law of supply and demand." i.e. supply goes up, price goes down, and vice versa. The outcome is the same for labor as it is for products. As long as we continue to permit an excess amount of supply unrestricted into this country, the price for that supply will go continue to go down.

And in the end, who do you think will suffer? Certainly not the Bush's of the world.

[Joe Hill]

What is one to make of this "debate"? Here we have people blaming undocumented immigrants for the healthcare crisis in the US, and when I point out that this is the position of the Minutemen people are offended? Get real. The Minutemen are real, and they depend on this false consciousness to give them the cover of respectability.

Who's to blame for the healthcare crisis? Jonathan has it right: Profit health care is to blame. This is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a public health care system, and as a consequence, although we spend a higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other industrialized country, we have poorer medical care even for those that can afford it, and 45 million uninsured, the vast majority of whom are not undocumented aliens but good ol' US citizens.

To blame this on the undocumented is worse than naive or just wrong, it is fuel to the fire of xenophobia and racism. It is true that some employers groups support the current system of "look the other way", while others advocate a "guest worker" program. This is because the current system and the proposed "guest worker" programs all provide employers with a captive work force. The working class alternative to this is amnesty for those already here, and a much expanded legal immigration policy, eliminating employer sanctions. These steps would do much to enable immigrants to organize into unions, and to end the necessity for them to accept "sub-standard wages". From Los Angeles to New York City, and from Washington state to Florida, where undocumented workers have been approached by unions, they have risen to the challenge and organized in spite of their vulnerable status.

This is not political correctness; this is common sense. As a result of US policy toward Mexico, we have a group of persons on our border desperate for work and income. If they cross the border, and effectively have no right to organize, they will depress wages in certain industries. If they stay on the other side, and work in the export manufacturing sector (the "maquiladoras") they will also depress wages in certain industries. Delphi has 50 plants in Mexico, and none of them will be closed in the current bankruptcy that may close dozens of US plants. Yet NAFTA was expressly written to avoid the issue of labor rights in Mexico and the movement of labor across borders.

US unions have been far too slow to take up the challenges of globalization, and to develop an internationalist outlook and program that would unite workers across our borders instead of dividing them. Marc's position would further divide us, and make it even more difficult to find a solution to our common problems.

[Marc]

Joe, you're right. For profit health care is a problem, because profits are generated by denying care and insurance to those most in need. If the profits were used to improve our standard of living, expand health insurance coverage to everyone, or to provide more effective medical care, then a for profit system could work. Unfortunately that isn't the way it works in the US. Instead profits are used to line the pockets of the executives and employees in the industry.

You certainly won't get any argument from me. Health care should not be a for profit business!

But the real problem with the current system, whether for profit or not, is that the cost of health care is shared disproportionately by those who have insurance. They must pay a greater share to cover the cost of the uninsured. (which includes illegal immigrants, or anyone willing to work for substandard wages and benefits.)

And how will a guest work program solve that problem? Will it stop illegal immigration? It might cut it, maybe substantially, but only by the numbers that are permitted to enter legally. The law and supply and demand still governs. An increased supply of labor will still depress wages. What's to keep business from locking out workers (remember the supermarket stike in CA), and hire other illegal aliens, or anyone willing to work at substandard wages, to fill those positions.

It doesn't solve the problem, but certainly will enrich union coffers with dues paid by these guest workers.

That is why I am advocate for a single payer system, where everyone pays a fair share of health care costs.

This will require everyone to contribute to their own care, and take much of the incentive away for employers to hire illegal and cheap labor.

It will allow businesses to compete more effectively around the world, which will then benefit workers with increased wages and benefits due to increase profits, from fairer world competition.

If unions and our political leaders were really concerned with the plight of workers around the world, they would put more effort into changing the way those countries operate, not by encouraging more of their citizens to come to the US. And unions should put more effort into establishing unions in those countries.

Remember, the organizing effort in this country, wasn't an easy proposition either.

[D Flinchum]

Joe, another amnesty, especially if severe employer sanctions are not imposed for those hiring illegal workers, will be a disaster for US workers and do nothing to halt illegal immigration.

The Immigration and Refugee Control Act (IRCA), passed in 1986, was touted as a “one-time-only “ amnesty to end illegal immigration, to provide a clear path for foreign workers to find legal jobs in the US, and to protect US workers from underground cheap labor. I supported it; it made sense as it was described. It promised to provide tough employer sanctions that would shut off the lure of employment for illegal workers and therefore halt the invasion that was causing so many problems, especially in the states bordering on Mexico. If adjustments to LEGAL immigration needed to be made, they too could follow.

As true reform, it was a massive failure. We accepted amnesty first with a promise of strict enforcement to follow shortly thereafter. US employer organizations from the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association on the right to the ACLU, MALDEF, and others on the left insured that sanctions would never be enforced. The agricultural component expected 400,000 applicants but received 1.8 million along with indications of substantial fraud. The estimated 4 million illegal immigrants in the US in 1986 have now grown into 9 to 20 million, depending on whose estimates you take. The same forces that sabotaged the IRCA are still at work.

In 10 years or less, we’ll be back inspecting yet another “last-time-only-we-promise” deal that again assures US citizens that we have finally got this appalling situation under control because illegal immigrants will continue to come and wait for the NEXT amnesty. And they will have a ready network in the group amnestied this time if we proceed with it.

Marc:" The law (of) supply and demand still governs. An increased supply of labor will still depress wages. What's to keep business from locking out workers (remember the supermarket stike in CA), and hire other illegal aliens, or anyone willing to work at substandard wages, to fill those positions."

Answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing and that - or something similar like firing the union sympathizers - is exactly what they will do. Look at New Orleans - what more do we need to convince us that these people are not at all interested in US workers, only the bottom line? Believe me, big business, GWB, the WSJ, Grover Norquist, the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Home Builders, K Street, and so on are not supporting anything that will allow these workers to form EFFECTIVE unions. Get over that idea. Labor is going to carry water for this scheme and then get sucker punched. But, Joe, they'll love your "no employers sanctions" piece. That, they'll lap up like cream.

"To blame this on the undocumented is worse than naive or just wrong, it is fuel to the fire of xenophobia and racism. "

Nonsense. If you are talking about health care then I made it clear that illegal immigrants are not the main cause but are a contributing factor, and they are. If you are talking about illegal immigration per se and your amnesty plan then the US workers most likely to be hurt by an amnesty are African Americans and Hispanics - many of them immigrants - who are on the lowest levels of the work force. Political correctness is the new McCarthyism. The very mention of the words "racism" or "xenophobia" - like "communist" of yesterday - are supposed to make all good people shut up, snap to, and get with the program. I used to be disgusted but now I'm just amused.

[Bill Pearson]

Reading this thread has made my skin crawl. Been there and done that, and in fact within the walls of organized labor. The battle over whether to support immigrant workers or turn our backs on them was raging as little as 5 or 6 years ago. Hell, i can remember my shock when i heard UFCW presidents having these same discussions.

BLAMING THE IMMIGRANT WORKER (legal or not) IS A FOOLS GAME. Yes, i'm shouting, but this shit has been going on for centuries. One of best programs i saw was put on by the St Paul Trades and Labor Speakers Bureau. Peter Rachleff and a couple of others detailed the history of immigrants being used to buffer labor shortages. It's nothing new and you will never stop it.

The key is to learn to work with it. Institutionalized labor spent much of the 80's and 90's turning their backs on workers and trying to protect their own. It was an abysmal failure. Building fences around card carrying members or around our own borders is a plan doomed to fail.

Hell employers crapped themselves when unions started aggressively working with immigrants. It was easy to divide and seperate workers based on race. It was one of the ways the employers helped dismantle the packinghouse workers unions. The irony is, that industry was born of immigrant workers and history shows us they found ways to make them cohesive and committed to solidarity.

I'm not saying illegals (undocumented) workers don't pose problems. But the problems of not opening our arms to them are far greater. To suggest our health care problems wouldn't exist if they weren't here is silly. To say employers wouldn't still be beating the shit out of workers is short-sighted. The crap employers are doing has little to do with immigrant workers, its mostly about greed and the desire to wipe unions off the face of the earth. Given that scenario, immigrant workers left to fend for themselves help fascilitate that end.

JT is right, many/most of these issues would be resolved if there was national health care in place. Imagine the savings if universal coverage was instituted and we incorporated 24 hour care (including workers comp as part of the system), with all of the costs picked up by all employers.

Our system needs a total overhaul. This notion that if we just get rid of the illegals many of the problems will go away is bogus. Address the concerns of all workers and at that point we can hold employers accountable for hiring people who shouldn't be here.

[Marc]

Peter Rachleff and a couple of others detailed the history of immigrants being used to buffer labor shortages.

So what you're saying is, there is a labor shortage? 7.6 million unemployed Americans, which doesn't take into account Americans that have stopped getting unemployment, and you're telling me there is a labor shortage??

And what about wage increases?

With inflation running at between 3.5% and 4% for the year, I would have expected that NYC transit works would have been able to do better then the 3.5% increase they received each year for 3 years. That amount is less then the current inflation rate (which could conceiveably go much higher), and doesn't take into account the 1.5% give back for health care.

If we had a labor shortage, I would think labor could demand a lot better increases. Unless you want to discount the theory of supply and demand. It is only a theory after all.

But the problems of not opening our arms to them (illegals (undocumented) workers ) are far greater.

And what exactly would some of those problems be? And why is it the US's responsibility to do something about it?

[Joe Hill]

Marc, I give up. You are hopelessly lost in your dream of an isolated "fortress America", in which the supply of labor is controlled by the US Border Patrol, and yes, the Minutemen. This is fantasy. The immigrants are here, they're not going home, and in fact millions more are on their way. All this thanks to US foreign policy, which has enriched the corporations and their shareholders by destroying the livelihoods of millions of Mexican, Central American and Caribbean peasants. You can thank Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. Just don't pretend there is something you can do to keep the poor immigrants from coming.

So if they are here, and more are coming, what should we do about it? Demonize them and blame them for our declining standard of living? Is it really because they are willing to work for "substandard wages" that our wages are falling? Have we done our part, by organizing all workers in our trade or industry, and demanding fair wages for all?

But the problems of not opening our arms to them (illegals (undocumented) workers ) are far greater.
And what exactly would some of those problems be? And why is it the US's responsibility to do something about it?

The problems of not opening our arms to immigrants are:

1) The existence of a class of workers unprotected by law or organization, subject to exploitation and use by the employers to break strikes, and force wages down;

2) The existence of additional millions of workers not covered by health insurance, forced to utilize the emergency rooms, causing costs for health care to rise;

3) A fatal division of the working class, as inimical to our interest as the division of race;

4) A scapegoating of immigrants that lets the real culprits, the corporations and the American ruling class, off the hook.

Why is it the US' problem?

It is one of the central problems facing the US working class, which is and has always been multi-national and multi-racial, but which has never understood how to overcome the divisions and unite in solidarity.

So, Marc, I give up on you, but I will never give up on the idea that one day we will learn from our history and unite and fight together for health care for all, jobs with dignity and justice, and political empowerment for the working class.

[bigfall]

Joe,

Thank you for your comment, and for your hope and determination. How depressing is it that the bosses have a stronger sense of international solidarity than workers do? At least in the 19th century Jay Gould's boast involved actually paying workers to kill each other -- nowadays he could just whisper a few lies in a few ears and we'd do the job for free.

[Ben]

Marc,

I know there's a choir of people trying to change your mind, and I don't harbor any illusions that I will be more successful than them. However, the fact is that historically organized labor has been anything but friendly to immigrant labor. In the darker parts of our history we excluded people of different nationalities and races from unions, and in slightly less dark times we did nothing to help them organize.

The fact of the matter is that when we ignored them, bosses were able to use them as a tool to do all the things you talked about. When we welcomed them into our unions, such as the janitors in LA, we all won. Janitors in LA now have jobs that pay a living wage and provide health insurance. Many of those janitors are undocumented, many of them are citizens, but none of us have to pay to subsidize their healthcare now becuase they won it by organizing.

Right now bosses use immigration status as a way of keeping people from organizing unions, to the detrement of all workers, a further tightening of the laws would only give bosses more power and do nothing to help workers improve their conditions.

If people want to take an approach of fining employers I would support it, but they should be fined for failing to follow wage and hour and labor laws that protect workers, regardless of they're immigrant workers.

Also, to portray undocumented immigrants as the main obstacle to meaningful healthcare reform is just plain silly. Both healthcare and immigration reform have a whole series of political obstacles in their way, and to say that we must first solve one to solve the other is ridiculous. There are also lots of other policy changes that could be made that would have a much better more immediate impact on the lives of american workers that dropping an iron curtain on our southern border. Some examples include raising the minimum wage, creating real protections for the rights of workers to form unions and extending collective bargaining rigths to agricultural workers, punishig corporate crime as severely as we punish drug posession, implementing a genuinely progressive tax system and including protections for labor rights in our trade agreements. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. While immigration reform may be important, it is far from the most important issue facing american workers.

Finally all undocumented workers pay taxes, many pay all the same taxes citizens do without the right to recoup it. Many if not most undocumented workers use fake social security numbers, meaning they pay into SSI and will never see the rewards for it, they also pay state and federal income taxes and don't file returns on them, so they don't get refunds. Even workers working in the informal economy pay property tax through their rent and sales tax for everything they purchase, the two largest sources of income to state and local governments who supposedly bare the burden of immigrants. I would bet that undocumented workers pay a much fairer share in taxes than corporations and the super rich do. Illegal immigrants, after all don't have off shore tax shelters.

[Phil]

hey, how do the fake social security numbers work? are those other people's SS numbers or are they just random numbers. The SSA or IRS just accept the money?

[Phil]

i shouldn't ask questions before googling. it's both and yes they do just accept the money.

[Marc]

I know there's a choir of people trying to change your mind, and I don't harbor any illusions that I will be more successful than them.

You're right, you won't change my mind. And if you think that bringing in an increased supply of labor will increase wages and benefits, simply because now, illegal (turned legal by the stroke of a pen) immigrants will be able to unionize, you just don't understand the 'law of supply and demand'.

The transit strike in NY is a perfect example. The transit workers new contract doesn't even keep up with inflation. And the supermarket strike in CA is another example. Lots of give backs, and so much lost in wages, many of the striking grocery workers won't make up for those lost wages until the next contract. And somehow that is a good thing for American Workers?

I can remember the days when unions had some clout, and contracts had cost of living increases in them with 3%+ wage and benefit increases on top of that.

Strikes like those may even make unions looks strong, encouraging immigrant workers to want to join unions. But the only thing that encouraging an over supply of labor to enter this country will accomplish is to enrich union coffers, ensuring the jobs of union leaders, which I believe is the real intention behind this facade.

I could go on and on, but what would be the point. I probably won't change your mind either.

Have a great New Year!

[Ben]

Marc,

You don't have to agree with me, but you could actually respond to what I wrote. I didn't advocate for increased immigration (which doesn't need me to advocate for it, since you understand the laws of supply and demand, you understand the forces driving immigration) or amnesty (which I support, but which is besides the point.) My main point was that your attempt to make immigration the main concern facng american workers is a red herring. Your continued attempts to do that are more and more transparent.

The TWU strike has very little if anything to do with immigration, I don't know what the statistics are, but I don't believe there is a significant presence of undocumented workers working in the public sector, so the TWU jobs were not threatened by immigrants. Secondly, I think you are just wrong when you refer to the wage increase issue, I'm quite sure that the TWU contract has a wage scale with seniority steps, and the 10.5 percent wage increase would be to the scale, not to individual wages, so it is in fact a 3% + annual COLA in addition to the annual increase. If I'm wrong, somebody correct me, but that is a much safer assumption than assuming that the 10.5% is the total increase individual workers are getting. Third, if the TWU strike is evidence of anything, it is that labor's political clout is at a low point which runs counter to your thesis of swelling the ranks to increase labor's power.

As for the grocery workers strike, I never said that was a good thing for american workers, so please don't assume to put words in my mouth. Without question, that was a loss for american workers. I just don't agree with you that immigrant workers were the cause of the problem. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, first and foremost to the greed of Safeway and its corporate buddies, secondly walmart's threat to the grocery industry and thirdly the failure of the leaderhsip of the UFCW to develop a good strategy to win. Once again, immigrantion is pretty far down the list of problems facing those workers.

and this statement is just incoherent:
Strikes like those may even make unions looks strong, encouraging immigrant workers to want to join unions. But the only thing that encouraging an over supply of labor to enter this country will accomplish is to enrich union coffers, ensuring the jobs of union leaders, which I believe is the real intention behind this facade.

so strikes encourage people to come to the US now? and who exactly is encouraging an over supply of labor. The last time i checked i didn't see john sweeney doing PA's for Nicarguan TV encourging people to come the US.

The fact of the matter remains that while immigration may be an important issue, pretending it is the only one and that immigrants are to blame for all of our problems puts you in with some ugly company. Your combination of intense xenophobic Nationalism and psuedo support for Socialism (in healthcare at least) for pure Americans reminds me of something, but I just can't put my finger on what it is.