Friday, March 3, 2006

Why I oppose a temporary guest worker program.

I must start off by saying that my opposition to the proposed "guest worker" provisions in the current version of the Senate's compromise immigration bill; “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006”, sponsored by Judiciary Chairmen Arlen Specter, are not based solely on the flaws in this particular bill, but on the whole concept of using "temporary" workers to fill our nations labor demands.

Before I begin my rant as to why the concept of guest workers is both morally wrong and economically ill- conceived, I would like to look at this particular piece of legislation.

At the present time we must keep in mind that this proposed bill is still in its embryonic stage and has only today moved to the full Judiciary Committee for debate. From this early mark-up though, we can see that many of the more draconian measures from the House bill (HR 4437) have been incorporated. The classification of any immigration related offense, no matter how small, as an "aggravated felony", the "indefinite detention" of those who violate immigration laws, and the limiting of judicial review for immigration claims, have all been integrated into Specter's version.

As a "compromise bill" it also contains aspects of the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005" sponsored by Senators Kennedy/McCain. One of these aspects is the inclusion of a guest worker provision, but it has been drastically modified from the original.

Let's take a look at both guest worker plans:
(more below the fold)
Tag:


Title III: Essential Worker Visa Program: "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005" (Kennedy/'McCain)

  • Creates a new temporary visa (H-5A) to allow foreign workers to enter and fill available jobs that require few or no skills

  • Applicants must show that they have a job waiting in the U.S., pay a fee of $500 in addition to application fees, and clear all security, medical, and other checks

  • Requires updating of America's Job Bank to make sure job opportunities are seen first by American workers

  • Initial cap on H-5A visas is set at 400,000, but the annual limit will be gradually adjusted up or down based on demand in subsequent years

  • Of the 400,000 annual visas, 50,000 must be allocated to "qualifying counties" that are outside a metropolitan area and that, during the last 20-year-period experienced a net out-migration of at least 10%

  • Visa is valid for three years, and can be renewed one time for a total of 6 years; at the end of the visa period the worker either has to return home or be in the pipeline for a green card

  • Visa is portable, but if the worker loses his job he has to find another one within 60 days or return home

  • Ensures that employers hiring temporary workers abide by Federal, state and local labor, employment and tax laws

  • Prohibits the hiring of temporary workers as independent contractors

  • Protects temporary workers from abuse by foreign labor contractors or employers

  • Gives temporary workers and U.S. workers remedies for violations of their rights

  • An employer can sponsor the H-5A visa holder for a green card, or after accumulating four years of work in H-5A status, the worker can apply to adjust status on his/her own

  • Sets up a task force to evaluate the H-5A program and recommend improvements

Kennedy/McCain Bill



Title IV: Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” (Specter)

  • Creates a new temporary visa (H-2C) to allow foreign workers to enter and fill available jobs that require few or no skills

  • Applicants must show that they have a job waiting, pays a $500 fee in addition to the cost of processing, undergoes a medical exam at his or her own expense and provides a criminal history, immigration history, and proves no involvement in gangs or terrorist groups to DHS.

  • Spouses and children would be eligible to accompany or join the principal alien for an additional fee of $500

  • Visa is valid for three years, with one three-year period extension. At the end of the six-year period, workers must return to their home country for at least one year before reentering the program.

  • Visa is portable, but if the worker loses his job he has to find another one within 45 days or return home. If returned the immigrant could reenter if they meet all the original requirements.

  • Individuals holding H-2C visas could travel outside of the United States and be readmitted on the same visa assuming the period of authorized admission had not expired

  • Requires employers to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including laws affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.

  • Foreign labor contractors who recruit workers under this program would required to register with the Secretary of Labor

  • The Secretary of Labor would establish an electronic job registry and a nationwide system of public labor exchange services to provide information on employment opportunities available to U.S. workers

Specter Bill

A careful reading of both bills reveals that the Specter bill has eliminated crucial aspects of Kennedy/McCain. One of the largest changes is the removal of any path to permanent residency for immigrant workers. Under Specters plan immigrants remain on a permanent cycle of temporary status, working for up to six years, only to return home for a year before they can start all over again. At least Kennedy/McCain offers a path to permanency for those who wish it.

Specter's plan also specifies no concrete number of visas to be issued under the plan, only a commission to study the issue. Without firm numbers, the Specter plan would be open to continual revision by business lobbying groups wishing to increase and decrease numbers to suit their needs. Kennedy/McCain provides firm numbers and a method to increase or decrease them by use of a specific formula.

While both bills tie immigrant eligibility to remain in the program to employment, the Specter bill places far more eligiblity restrictions on the employer, and sets up a "pool" of qualified employers:


To qualify the employer must attest that the employment of such worker will:

1. Not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the U.S.

2. Did not and will not cause displacement of a U.S. worker employed during a 180-day period beginning 90 days before the petition is filed.

3. The worker will be paid the greater of the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid by the employer to similarly situated workers

4. Such worker will be provided the working conditions and benefits normal to similarly situated workers in the area of intended employment

5. There is no strike, lockout or work stoppage in the course of a labor dispute in the occupation at the place of employment;

6. Provide benefits at least equal to those provided under to state worker compensation law for comparable employment;

7. There are not sufficient able, willing and qualified employees who are available at the time and place needed;

8. The employer has made good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers including, recruitment at least 14 days but no more than 90 days prior to filing

While some of these added restrictions are quite reasonable, taken in total, they will tend to limit the kind of employers who would qualify for the program, particularly amongst the small, independent business that now hire many undocumented workers. The bookkeeping, time restrictions and paperwork involved could prove prohibitive to small employers, leaving only larger operations, with the ability to hire extra personel to oversee processing, in the "pool". With a limited employer pool, immigrants who wish to change jobs may be reluctant to do so, no matter what the reason.

The Kennedy/McCain bill gives the temporary worker the same job mobility as a "green card" where the immigrant can make job decisions based on what job is best for them, not limited to a pre-approved "pool".

For these reasons I find the Temporary Guest Worker proposals in the Specter bill unacceptable.

My other problem is I find the whole concept of "temporary" workers impractical and discriminatory. I understand that in certain agricultural sectors the need for large amounts of seasonal labor is required, and for these kinds of jobs I see the logic in temporary workers. Outside of that circumstance, I see no need or reason to have such a program.

If an employer needs a worker today to fill a job, how can he, the government or anyone else, possibly know that the job will no longer exist in an arbitrary amount of time like three or six years. That is the premise this program has to work on in order make any logical sense. If not, and the job is in fact available after that time, why would there be any reason to send the worker home?

The only reason would be to keep the workers from putting in enough time to qualify for pay raises, benefits, the ability to unionize etc. It's purely discriminatory. It's a plan to perpetuate an "underclass" of revolving, cheap, immigrant labor.

If the labor market dictates that a given number of low-skilled workers are needed every year to fill jobs in this country, and these jobs can not in fact be filled with native workers, than the solution is to allow people from other nations to come and fill them. Not as temporary, disposable workers to be replaced as soon as they gain economic privileges, but as full fledged new members of society who can enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of being uprooted every six years.

It seems very simple to me: Would American workers sign on to a plan by which no one could ever stay at one job any more that six years, no matter how much they wanted too? Would they accept a plan that assured they could never qualify for a pension, pay raises, extra weeks of vacation, medical benefits, a 401K, and all the other perks that go with long-term employment? Would American workers accept that they would have to uproot their families and move every six years?

Of course not …. We believe in free will and economic autonomy. Why should we expect immigrant workers to accept any less?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Americans can and do accept contract jobs abroad which are of limited duration, particularly in the middle east but also in other parts of the world. They accept these positions knowing full well that they are not going to be given citizenship or in some cases (Saudi Arabia for instance) if a woman accepts a position she will lose many rights (driving, what she is allowed to wear) afforded in her home country. In fact, most countries do not offer citizenship to contract workers, they are there to make money and may renew their contract if employment is offered but that's the extent of the situation. By offering citizenship, voting rights, etc. we are politicizing the whole worker issue. The main issue here is there are jobs that need to be filled by low skilled workers, this should be done on a bid basis, why get my lettuce picked from a job contract from Mexico that puts the lettuce at a dollar a head in the store when I can get it from Chinese workers for 25 cents? The issue of citizenship, racial bias and immigration status are all politicizing a basic monetary supply and demand situation and should not be entered into. A worker program should be just what it is on its face a program by which people can work abroad and return home.

Anonymous said...

Well, actually

Duke1676 Said:

My other problem is I find the whole concept of "temporary" workers impractical and discriminatory. I understand that in certain agricultural sectors the need for large amounts of seasonal labor is required, and for these kinds of jobs I see the logic in temporary workers. Outside of that circumstance, I see no need or reason to have such a program.

Hi Duke - I just found your diary on KOS which led me to here. I must say it has been a breath of fresh air reading your
posts, and couldn't agree more with your perspective on things. I do think that the guest worker program does have a lot
of potential to fill a gap in the current and in the proposed immigration plans.

If an employer needs a worker today to fill a job, how can he, the government or anyone else, possibly know that the job will no longer exist in an arbitrary amount of time like three or six years. That is the premise this program has to work on in order make any logical sense. If not, and the job is in fact available after that time, why would there be any reason to send the worker home?

Ideologically, you might be right. The reality is is that this would provide a pathway for more people to be able to work in the US within the system. Once in the US working within the system and where the worker would have the ability to change jobs within the system who is to say how things end up? At the end of 3 years, my unskilled laborer might become a skilled tile setter who is eligible to change his visa from the temporary worker path to the permanent residency path? If we can get 400,000 temp visas a year where people can come here and work, where people can take vacations and go home and see their families I think that is a good thing. Very similar to the way we do H1B's.

The only reason would be to keep the workers from putting in enough time to qualify for pay raises, benefits, the ability to unionize etc. It's purely discriminatory. It's a plan to perpetuate an "underclass" of revolving, cheap, immigrant labor.

Here is where the portability becomse key. You can come here to work for Tyson, but once you are here, you can find another job. You have the opportunity to develop other skills or acclimate yourself so that you can use the skills that you have.
I have a friend whose sister is here. She has a nursing degree (RN) in Mexico that is not recognized in the US. she is cleaning hotel rooms right now. Under a temp worker plan, she might be able to come here and work in her industry and getting her credentials up to US standards, once there she could easily qualify on another path to residency.

If the labor market dictates that a given number of low-skilled workers are needed every year to fill jobs in this country, and these jobs can not in fact be filled with native workers, than the solution is to allow people from other nations to come and fill them. Not as temporary, disposable workers to be replaced as soon as they gain economic privileges, but as full fledged new members of society who can enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of being uprooted every six years.

I think the reality is is that the low skilled workers would come here, improve their skills and move up the economic ladder and be replaced by a new wave of immigrants. I think your viewpoint is valid for the Tysons and other type big businesses but I don't think that level of callousness translates down to the smaller businesses. When you get involved with people personally and work side by side with them they are no longer immigrants. They are human beings like yourself trying to make their way through the world. The more contact you have with immigrants, the harder it becomes to be xenophobic.

It seems very simple to me: Would American workers sign on to a plan by which no one could ever stay at one job any more that six years, no matter how much they wanted too? Would they accept a plan that assured they could never qualify for a pension, pay raises, extra weeks of vacation, medical benefits, a 401K, and all the other perks that go with long-term employment? Would American workers accept that they would have to uproot their families and move every six years?

I think that many US workers already live in this type of plan whether they realize it or not. Outside of Government I don't know of too many jobs that provide pensions. More and more medical benefits are going by the wayside as is peoples
loyalty to companies that show no loyalty to them. I think the important thing is to create a pathway into the system legally. One that protects them from abuse and makes employers adhere to standards. This levels the playing field and is
good for everyone.

Of course not …. We believe in free will and economic autonomy. Why should we expect immigrant workers to accept any less?

We do believe in this. I believe I should have the right to hire anybody I want from any country I want to work for me. I believe that rather than taking jobs away from citizens immigrants are a vital part of our economy who create more than they take. I believe what has made our county great is the fact that we are a nation built of immigrants who all came here believing that they could build something here they couldn't do in their country of origin.

Finally Duke, I also want to thank you for your writing. It is some of the clearest, fairest, and heartful writing on this issue that I have come across so far.

Anonymous said...

Carlo says:

In regards to your letter or comment, I only have one analogy, " Chew your latino gum and when the flavor is gone, spit it out and maybe step all over it". I believe this analogy says a lot about this program. Let us believe in a fair plan. Latinos, we need to focus more in education, thus , we will not be pushed, or lie to. Education is power.

Thanks for giving this opportunity to express myself! Keep doing the right thing for our people.