Here we see in Christian Science Monitor----always that global Wall Street neo-liberal economics---that a global labor pool is necessary for A FREE MARKET.
'I agree with Bryan Caplan that an international free market in labor services is an important component of a free market. The problems many libertarians and conservatives associate with immigration stem from poorly-defined private property rights rather than immigration as such'.
Immigration policy written by Obama and Clinton neo-liberals these several years state that immigrants can no longer be unemployed if they are working towards a pathway to citizenship. At the same time they extended social services and programs to immigrants that look just like the United Nations packages being unrolled in all Foreign Economic Zones. Now, that does not mean immigrants actually get those benefits---it simply looks as though these global citizens with no sovereign rights are getting some protection. As immigrant citizens know---they cannot even get all their wages----
THESE SOCIAL BENEFIT POLICIES FOR IMMIGRANTS ARE ONLY LAYING GROUND FOR GLOBAL ONE WORLD BASIC INCOME.
How much do immigrants cost
ic talks about the costs of legal and illegal immigrants, but what does that really add up to?
By Art Carden, Guest blogger January 4, 2011
One of the comments on yesterday’s post points out that some immigrants are net burdens on the welfare state because they consume more services than they pay in taxes and might, if they get strong enough, procure even more transfers. I agree with Bryan Caplan that an international free market in labor services is an important component of a free market. The problems many libertarians and conservatives associate with immigration stem from poorly-defined private property rights rather than immigration as such.
This got me wondering about the cost of welfare for immigrants and how it compares to other components of government spending. After all, the claim that comes right after “they took our jobs” is “they’re going to take our welfare.” How much do immigrants cost?
According to the Center for Immigration Studies (via the Federation for American Immigration Reform), state government spending on welfare for immigrants is $11-$22 billion through programs like TANF. A report by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that the Federal Government spend some $26.3 billion on services for illegal immigrants in 2002. These immigrants paid about $16 billion in taxes, leaving us with a net cost of about $10.4 billion (these are their numbers; I know $26.3-$16=$10.3, but there’s rounding error).
Let’s bias this number upward. We’ll take the high estimate of state spending ($22 billion) and assume that the $26.3 billion is all costs. Add them together and we get $48.3 billion. Let’s round it up to $50 billion and assume that there are no offsetting benefits. According to the website www.usgovernmentspending.com, state, local, and federal governments spent almost $5 trillion in 2007. Even if the money spent on welfare for immigrants had no offsetting benefits, it’s about 1% of government spending in 2007.
This is not meant to be precise: the numbers are from several different years, and the calculations are only to get a sense of the magnitude of government spending on immigrants relative to government spending on everything else. Even if you double this crude estimate of the amount being spent on immigrant welfare, you’re up to 2% of 2007 government spending. Compared to the elephants in the Federal budget (Social Security, Medicare, Defense), the money we’re spending on welfare for immigrants isn’t very much.
Does welfare for immigrants cost us money? Yes, but I think the evidence suggests that these costs are pretty small relative to the benefits from larger markets (here’s one example of evidence). Even if there are no offsetting benefits, by focusing so much attention on it we are kind of like a grocery shopper with debt trouble who loads up his shopping cart with hundreds of dollars worth of extravagant, frivolous, and unhealthy items and then argues for hours with his family over whether they should save $1 a week by purchasing store brand rather than name brand soft drinks. If the body politic were an actual body in need of medical attention, waste from defense and entitlement spending would be compound fractures in both legs while waste from welfare spending for immigrants might be a scraped elbow.
This data has been known these several years after the 2008 economic crash. At the same time of great unemployment from crash Obama super-sized the influx of global labor pool from Asia, Arabia, Pacific Island, and Africa making it harder for Latinos to find and keep employment. So, yes migration from Latin America has already declined. If Latinos cannot stay employed there is no PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP---and they know this as do their 5% to the 1%.
So why the WALL? Global Wall Street is now focused on data-driven employment geared to RACE TO THE TOP ONE WORLD job training. They are now fighting for the BEST OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD----so will be bringing immigrants in through this human capital distribution system and do not want global 99% coming OR GOING.
Global 1% and their 2% Spanish and Portuguese and their global corporations are installing that same ONE WORLD ONE RACE TO THE TOP JOB TRAINING structure so they do not want open borders anymore.
April 23, 2012
Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less
By Jeffrey S. Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera
The May 3 update includes the full methodology appendix and a statistical profile of Mexican immigrants in the United States.
The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.
The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.
It is possible that the Mexican immigration wave will resume as the U.S. economy recovers. Even if it doesn’t, it has already secured a place in the record books. The U.S. today has more immigrants from Mexico alone—12.0 million—than any other country in the world has from all countries of the world.1 Some 30% of all current U.S. immigrants were born in Mexico. The next largest sending country—China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan)—accounts for just 5% of the nation’s current stock of about 40 million immigrants.
Looking back over the entire span of U.S. history, no country has ever seen as many of its people immigrate to this country as Mexico has in the past four decades. However, when measured not in absolute numbers but as a share of the immigrant population at the time, immigration waves from Germany and Ireland in the late 19th century equaled or exceeded the modern wave from Mexico.
Beyond its size, the most distinctive feature of the modern Mexican wave has been the unprecedented share of immigrants who have come to the U.S. illegally. Just over half (51%) of all current Mexican immigrants are unauthorized, and some 58% of the estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican (Passel and Cohn, 2011).
The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.
The net standstill in Mexican-U.S. migration flows is the result of two opposite trend lines that have converged in recent years. During the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, a total of 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States, down by more than half from the 3 million who had done so in the five-year period of 1995 to 2000. Meantime, the number of Mexicans and their children who moved from the U.S. to Mexico between 2005 and 2010 rose to 1.4 million, roughly double the number who had done so in the five-year period a decade before. While it is not possible to say so with certainty, the trend lines within this latest five-year period suggest that return flow to Mexico probably exceeded the inflow from Mexico during the past year or two.
Of the 1.4 million people who migrated from the U.S. to Mexico since 2005, including about 300,000 U.S.-born children, most did so voluntarily, but a significant minority were deported and remained in Mexico. Firm data on this phenomenon are sketchy, but Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on government data from both countries suggest that 5% to 35% of these returnees may not have moved voluntarily.
In contrast to the decrease of the Mexican born, the U.S. immigrant population from all countries has continued to grow and numbered 39.6 million in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.
In addition, the number of Mexican-Americans in the U.S.—both immigrants and U.S.-born residents of Mexican ancestry—is continuing to rise. The Mexican-American population numbered 33 million in 2010.2 As reported previously (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011), between 2000 and 2010 births surpassed immigration as the main reason for growth of the Mexican-American population.
The population of Mexican-born residents of the U.S. is larger than the population of most countries or states. Among Mexican-born people worldwide, one-in-ten lives in the United States.
This report has five additional sections. The next section analyzes statistics on migration between Mexico and the United States from data sources in both countries. The third uses mainly Mexican data to examine characteristics, experience and future intentions of Mexican migrants handed over to Mexican authorities by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The fourth, based on U.S. data, examines trends in border enforcement statistics. The fifth looks at changing conditions in Mexico that might affect migration trends. The report’s last section looks at characteristics of Mexican-born immigrants in the U.S., using U.S. Census Bureau data. The appendix explains the report’s methodology and data sources.
Among the report’s other main findings from these sections:
Changing Patterns of Border Enforcement
- In spite of (and perhaps because of) increases in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross. Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are now at their lowest level since 1971.
- As apprehensions at the border have declined, deportations of unauthorized Mexican immigrants–some of them picked up at work sites or after being arrested for other criminal violations–have risen to record levels. In 2010, 282,000 unauthorized Mexican immigrants were repatriated by U.S. authorities, via deportation or the expedited removal process.
- Although most unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities say they plan to try to return, a growing share say they will not try to come back to the U.S. According to a survey by Mexican authorities of repatriated immigrants, 20% of labor migrants in 2010 said they would not return, compared with just 7% in 2005.
- A growing share of unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities had been in the United States for a year or more—27% in 2010, up from 6% in 2005. Also, 17% were apprehended at work or at home in 2010, compared with just 3% in 2005.
- In Mexico, among the wide array of trends with potential impact on the decision to emigrate, the most significant demographic change is falling fertility: As of 2009, a typical Mexican woman was projected to have an average 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 for her 1960 counterpart.
- Compared with other immigrants to the U.S., Mexican-born immigrants are younger, poorer, less-educated, less likely to be fluent in English and less likely to be naturalized citizens.
We showed how our international labor unions like SEIU have not only promoted CLINTON/OBAMA global Wall Street neo-liberals but now are the force behind global labor pool immigrants inside our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones. Our labor unions were of course the strongest voice against immigrant labor in US but changed as the international leadership transitioned from representing workers ----to working for global corporations managing workers. No one knows better than our international labor unions how bad global labor pool and Foreign Economic Zone policies have been overseas----they know unions have not been able to organize global workers because of the structures of global labor pool----so they would be the ones FIGHTING US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----AND GLOBAL LABOR POOL status. They are as RAY STEVENS in his video being that voice of INSTABILITY working for ONE WORLD.
These are voices from right and left all silenced by a global 5% to the 1% MOVING FORWARD policies that kill 99% of global citizens.
We saw it was former SEIU labor leader STEIN moved to IVY LEAGUE in NYC to bring our labor unions into promoting BASIC INCOME and they will do it making it all sound like EQUITY----what it will end doing is bringing those global immigrants wanting a developed nation wage back down to what they earned in third world nations----with WE THE PEOPLE
Unions launch recruiting push for immigrants protected by Obama actions
Published December 25, 2014
In this March 20, 2014 file photo, members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, rally in front of the Illinois State Capitol in support of Immigration changes. (AP)
America's struggling labor unions got a gift this year when President Obama announced his expansive executive actions on immigration: potentially thousands, if not millions, of new members.
Labor leaders reportedly are launching a new recruiting push by reaching out to those immigrants affected by Obama's immigration announcement last month.
The actions are expected to offer work permits to some 4 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally and, until now, were reluctant to join unions for fear of retaliation. Union leaders now say the president's actions give them new protections -- and are keen on signing them up.
"I think we'll see very positive changes" because of the action, Tom Balanoff, president of Service Employees International Union Local 1, told The Associated Press. "One of them, I hope, is that more workers will come forward and want to organize."
Even before the president's announcement -- which infuriated congressional Republicans -- labor unions were pushing the president to use executive powers to ease immigration policy.
On the day of Obama's decision, the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka said the move would "allow millions of people to live and work without fear, and afford them the status to assert their rights on the job."
Indeed, the AFL-CIO now says it's training organizers to recruit eligible workers.
The SEIU, whose more than 2 million members include janitors and maintenance workers, recently announced a website where immigrants can learn about the action. And the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions are planning workshops and partnering with community groups and churches to reach out to immigrants.
The efforts come even as Republicans and other opponents of Obama's action work to undo it, saying it will hurt American workers, and as some labor experts say they're skeptical immigrants will feel safe enough to unionize in large numbers.
Labor unions have struggled over the past decade to maintain their membership and political muscle. The ranks fell by more than 1.2 million between 2003 and 2013, when there were about 14.5 million members nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The percentage of workers that were union members fell from 12.9 percent to 11.3 percent during that same period.
Business-friendly Republican governors have approved measures in recent years aimed at weakening labor, even in places such as Michigan that were once considered union strongholds. And in some states where Republicans boosted their numbers in the November midterms, lawmakers are planning another wave of so-called "right-to-work" bills next year.
In Obama's home state of Illinois, a GOP businessman unseated the Democratic governor last month in part by promising to constrain labor's influence in government.
Unions say they can help protect immigrants against abuses such as wage theft and discrimination. And even if the immigrants aren't citizens and cannot vote, they can help unions by paying dues and doing the heavy lifting needed around election time -- knocking on doors, driving voters to the polls and making phone calls for pro-labor candidates.
Republicans say the executive actions -- which would affect people who have children and have been in the U.S. more than five years -- will make it tougher for Americans already struggling to find good-paying jobs. They've pushed legislation to void the new protections.
"The president's action is a threat to every working person in this country -- their jobs, wages, dreams, hopes and futures," said GOP U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
Felipe Diosdado, who came to the U.S. illegally in 1997, says undocumented people he knows are working for cash at small businesses that aren't unionized because they're afraid to apply at larger job sites that are more likely to verify a worker's immigration status.
And while he acknowledged many immigrants are fearful because the protection is temporary and could be undone by a future president, he expects some will sign up.
"It's a risk, but you always have a risk," said the 36-year-old father of two, who joined a union while working at a construction site 14 years ago. "Being undocumented, you live with risk every day."
Shannon Gleeson, an associate professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said she expects the response to be "very place-specific," with people coming forward in places that have traditionally been considered immigrant-friendly, like Los Angeles, while being reluctant in places like Houston, where it's a struggle to find a unionized hotel.
What immigrants in the US need is PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP NOW-----what immigrants get when far-right wing global Wall Street CLINTON/OBAMA control our left Democratic Party is NONE OF THE ABOVE and our international labor unions KNOW THIS.
We have moved totally away from what is the left standing on immigration----bringing our immigrants into citizenship with full rights----to simply POSING LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE by throwing single social issues at our immigrant families knowing they will not get citizenship with CLINTON/OBAMA ---and knowing the goal of CLINTON/OBAMA will have immigrants AND US CITIZENS working for $3-6 a day or $20-30 a day for white collar professionals in US Foreign Economic Zones.
OUR INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNION LEADERS KNOW THIS----THEY KNOW IT IS BAD FOR GLOBAL LABOR AND THEY KNOW US WORKERS WILL BE FOLDED INTO THESE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE ONE WORLD GOALS.
'In what could be a major development for worker rights, the AFL-CIO has announced a new plan to enlist tens of millions of non-union workers, including immigrants and low-wage workers who have traditionally not been part of its federation'.
This is why today we have our 'labor and justice' organizations coming out in protest against a TRUMP while being silent on ELECTION FRAUDS AND RIGGING FOR PRIMARIES keeping CLINTON/OBAMA global neo-liberals in office----TRUMP IS SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL POLICIES.
In Historic Move, AFL-CIO Expands Ranks with Vote to Include Non-Union, Immigrant, Low-Wage Workers
StorySeptember 12, 2013Watch Full Show
In what could be a major development for worker rights, the AFL-CIO has announced a new plan to enlist tens of millions of non-union workers, including immigrants and low-wage workers who have traditionally not been part of its federation. The move comes as unions face a major decline in membership and have seen their collective bargaining rights slashed in former union strongholds like Wisconsin. Meanwhile, non-union workers at Wal-Mart, and fast-food chains like McDonald’s, have gained momentum in their efforts to push for better pay by holding one-day strikes. We’re joined by Cristina Tzintzun, executive director of the Workers Defense Project in Texas, who just attended the AFL-CIO quadrennial convention.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to what could be an historic development for worker rights. During its quadrennial convention this week in Los Angeles, the AFL-CIO announced a new plan to enlist tens of millions of non-union workers, including immigrants and low-wage workers who have traditionally not been part of its federation. The move comes as unions face a major decline in membership and have seen their collective bargaining rights slashed in states like Wisconsin that were once union strongholds. Meanwhile, non-union workers at Wal-Mart and fast-food chains like McDonald’s have gained momentum in their efforts to push for better pay by holding one-day strikes. This is AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka addressing the convention on Monday.
RICHARD TRUMKA: To turn America right-side up, we need a real working-class movement. And if that’s going to happen, we, our institutions, have to do some things differently. We must begin here and now today the great work of re-awakening a movement of working people, all working people, not just the people in this hall, not just the people that we represent today, but everybody who works in this country, everyone who believes that people who work deserve to make enough to live and enjoy the good things in life.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Cristina Tzintzun, who attended the AFL-CIO convention this week and helped organize its agenda. She’s executive director of the Workers Defense Project in Texas, which was profiled last month in The New York Times. Reporter Steve Greenhouse called it "a union in spirit" and wrote, quote, "The Workers Defense Project is one of 225 worker centers nationwide aiding many of the country’s 22 million immigrant workers. The centers have sprouted up largely because labor unions have not organized in many fields where immigrants have gravitated, like restaurants, landscaping and driving taxis. And there is another reason: many immigrants feel that unions are hostile to them," he wrote. Cristina Tzintzun is now in Washington, D.C., where later today she’ll join others in a civil disobedience protest to call for comprehensive immigration reform.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about this latest move of the AFL-CIO and its significance, Cristina.
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: Sure. Thanks for having me. So this is a historic moment in the he AFL-CIO’s history. This is the first time at any one of their conventions that they invited outside groups and welcomed outside groups, opinions about how to shift and change the labor movement, about how to organize workers that traditionally have been excluded from organizing through a contract with a union, and also invited faith and community partners. So it was the most diverse and open discussion that the AFL-CIO has had. And also one of the most controversial points that was brought up were resolutions at the convention for a lot of labor unions, as well.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Cristina, you’ve worked especially with construction workers in Texas, and the building trades of all of the AFL-CIO unions have always been the ones most resistant to opening up their ranks to—and in bringing in non-union workers. Can you talk about what your experience has been like in Texas with non-union construction workers?
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: So, in Texas, we’re in one of the most hostile, anti-worker, anti-union states in the country, and so that’s forced us to be very creative. We also have the largest undocumented population in the construction industry. And though in other parts of the country construction tend to be good blue-collar jobs because they’re protected by unions, in Texas that hasn’t been the case. And with so many undocumented workers that unions haven’t been able to organize, and many of their structures don’t even allow them to organize, we’ve reached out to the building trades and had them work with us. And to be very honest, in the beginning, that wasn’t always the easiest relationship, but now we have one of the strongest coalitions working with union partners from construction unions than anywhere else in the state. And those unions are now standing up and calling for immigration reform and saying that working with worker centers and community partners is actually what’s helping them gain traction again. And so, that example is what, along with other worker centers like the domestic workers that just passed the Bill of Rights in—through the Senate, the Bill of Rights in California, is bringing new life into what is labor in this country. And so, there are people looking at community groups like ours and others to say, "How can we start to do—try these strategies in traditional labor unions or outside of labor unions to lift up standards for workers?"
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka addressing the convention on Monday.
RICHARD TRUMKA: If you work for a living in this country, our movement is your movement. Sisters and brothers, it’s time to tear down the barriers, to remove the boundaries between workers. It’s time to stop letting employers and politicians and all the others tell us who is a worker and who isn’t, who’s in our movement and who isn’t. Working people alone should decide who is in our labor movement, and that is exactly what we will do.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s, of course, Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO. Cristina Tzintzun, what exactly does it mean to have non-union members of the AFL-CIO? Practically, how does it play out in people’s work?
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: Well, it’s still yet to see how it’s going to play out in people’s work, but I think the shift is really important. Our economy has greatly changed since the AFL-CIO started organizing and winning contracts for—union contracts for workers. We now—one in three workers in this country are classified as contingent workers, or people that work temporary, part-time or on a contract basis. That makes it incredibly hard for the AFL-CIO to organize them under the current legal structure. So, this shift will help them look at new strategies to organize the workforce. But no one really knows how it’s going to play out quite yet with community groups like ours or faith partners.
So, what happened at the convention, it’s allowing a change of the rules of the AFL-CIO to start broadening its movement and start developing new strategies. So, all of that work will really happen after the convention, and it will depend union by union. Not every union is excited about this shift. Some have questions or concerns. Other unions are very much welcoming this change and already developing strategies about how they can start organizing non-union workers, as you’ve seen happening with the fast-food strikes in this country, which are gaining a lot of traction, primarily supported by SEIU, but also many community groups and faith partners across the country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But how would you favor it, in terms of how you envision it possibly moving forward? Because obviously there’s questions, as, one, would the federation be recruiting individual people or through the worker centers into specific unions or into a separate union? Would they have the same kind of voting powers as the existing unions? How would you—would want to see this develop?
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: So, right now it’s—the strategy would be to recruit individuals into the AFL-CIO through a partnership with an institution called Working America. It’s not clear how it will work with worker centers. And for some worker centers, we want to support and be part of a broader labor movement, but also want to maintain our autonomy to do and to continue to be creative at the local level and win gains for workers, maybe not through a union contract. In Texas, we’ve won significant gains in a really hard and hostile climate, whether it’s passing local ordinances that raise standards for workers, or at the state level, as well, and also taking on some of the largest developers in the country to pay construction workers a living wage and ensure certain safety standards. The AFL-CIO will start trying to organize individuals, and that is the first time that they have done that. So that is a huge shift in where they’re going to invest many of their resources, both financial and human resources, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to play a clip from one of the speakers who addressed the AFL convention Tuesday. This is a young woman who’s an immigrant, a DREAMer, Hareth Andrade-Ayala. She was going to read her poem "America" after President Obama’s scheduled speech before the AFL-CIO, but he stayed in Washington to handle the situation in Syria.
HARETH ANDRADE-AYALA: Actually, I was supposed to do my poem before President Obama spoke, with the hopes that I may ask him to stop my father’s deportation. But then I realized, after hearing the artists who inspired us with the cut-outs, saying actions speak louder than words, and looking at the tables, together we are stronger. So I said together we are stronger. So I’m going to ask if you want to tell President Obama to stop my dad’s deportation, please stand up.
AMY GOODMAN: Audience members at the AFL-CIO convention stood and supported DREAMer Hareth Andrade-Ayala. Cristina Tzintzun, your response?
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: The AFL-CIO made a major shift several years ago in support of immigration reform. You know, they used to be an organization that didn’t support undocumented immigrants, and that shift was historic and also allowed for them to give their political influence, financial resources and people power to win immigration reform. So, it’s been a huge support to the movement. And at this point, with so many undocumented workers—in our industry in Texas, it’s 50 percent of the workforce—immigrant and workers’ rights are intrinsically linked, and the AFL-CIO recognizes that and has become one of the largest and most important partners in our struggle to win immigration reform.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cristina, you’re scheduled to participate in a protest in Washington around immigration reform. Your concerns, perhaps, about how all of this effort of the president now to raise possible military strikes against Syria will affect the possibility of getting immigration reform passed before the end of this year, given the fact that he’s going to have to extract enormous amount of political capital to even possibly get his way on Syria?
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: Well, I think one thing that that shows is that when President Obama wants to use his political influence to get something done, he can do it, and he should use that same amount of energy on immigration reform. You know, I’m from Texas, where we have some of the most anti-immigrant legislators in the country. And today, hundreds of women are coming together from across the country to lay their lives and risk deportation in an act of civil disobedience to win immigration reform. All we’re asking from our legislators is to show just a little bit of the same level of courage that these women are showing, many of whom are undocumented. So, we’re hopeful that we can win something. And if the House doesn’t want to pass a bill, then President Obama has in his ability to grant deferred action, as he did to childhood arrivals, to their parents. And he can also stop the deportations of 1,400 people that are deported in this country every single day under his administration. So, that’s the action we’ll be participating in today, in hope that this moment of courage by these women from across the country will help serve as an example to our legislators, who have been standing on the sidelines and not moving immigration reform forward.
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to read some of the findings of a report released by your organization, the Workers Defense Project, with the University of Texas, about the dangerous conditions faced by construction workers in Texas. You write that you have found, from 2003 to 2010, Texas construction jobs made up roughly 6 percent of all employment and accounted for 26 percent of workplace deaths. You also report one in five, or 20 percent, of Texas construction workers are injured badly enough on the job they require medical care, and in many cases hospitalizations. We’re going to end with this, Cristina.
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: No, no, if you could respond to that.
CRISTINA TZINTZUN: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, Texas is the most deadly place for construction workers in the country. You know, Rick Perry says we’ve had an economic miracle in Texas, but the reality is, for workers, they haven’t benefited. At the peak of when we were having deaths, in the highest peak just a couple of years ago in the construction industry, a worker was dying every two-and-a-half days. You know, the construction industry in Texas is the largest employer of undocumented workers and also the largest donor to the Republican Party in Texas. So there’s a contradiction of them not supporting immigration reform but still wanting an exploitable workforce. So, these conditions are rampant in the construction industry, and it shows you where we’re going as a country if we follow Texas’s path of deregulation and not protecting the rights of workers.
AMY GOODMAN: Cristina Tzintzun, we want to thank you for being with us, executive director of the Workers Defense Project in Texas, just back from the AFL-CIO quadrennial convention in L.A., in Washington where she’s going to join others in civil disobedience today to call for comprehensive immigration reform.
We have seen all over the world as Foreign Economic Zones are to be moved into a nation overseas----MARXIST instability starts and we know it is tied to global Wall Street players. Our US trade unions worked for American workers earning an American wage----when these trade unions go international they simply work for global industrial corporations because that is where they organize. Trades don't have to be international-----industrial corporations do not have to be global----and our labor should be the ones fighting against ANTI-TRUST AND MONOPOLY LAWS breaking down our ability to control global corporate power. This is where the 99% is being fooled by what should be PRO-LEFT LABOR LEADERS. These international labor union leaders KNOW MARXISM is bad for workers----it organizes workers for industries best interests and not for worker's interests. These several decades of building Foreign Economic Zones overseas have always started with MARXIST UPRISINGS----with JESUITS supporting these MARXISTS----and after millions are killed and displaced----global industry fills FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES enslaving global labor pool.
Please be aware my labor union member friends-----this is not how we get back to American quality of life---this is how global Wall Street will move the US to third world Foreign Economic Zone structures that enslave Americans and the immigrant labor force.
This is how a SEIU former leader STERN brings in the platform of BASIC INCOME and sells it to workers as being MARXIST----ie everyone earns the same thing---only that global 1% and their 2% own the global corporate campuses and global factories are are really just bringing US workers down to overseas wages.
Marxism and the Trade Unions | WeAreMany.org
What is the Marxist analysis of trade unions? What is the Marxist approach to working inside them? What historical examples can we draw on to inform our trade union work today?
“When unions fail to defend workers,” Vargas said, “everything is lost.”
As someone who is strong on supporting our US labor unions and rights of labor to organize----WE THE PEOPLE have allowed our unions to become corrupt because we allowed our US Constitutional and Federal laws surrounding ANTI-TRUST AND MONOPOLY be ignored illegally by global Wall Street pols. Our US unions went global and that is when they became harmful to global labor pool. Please break down those international labor unions and reorganize as local US labor unions and DO NOT ALLOW INTERNATIONAL UNIONS TO PUSH US WORKERS AND IMMIGRANT WORKERS IN US TO MARXISM......
We have pointed to CASA DE MARYLAND and other Latino organizations tied to labor rights already bringing out that MARXIST stance-----it killed our Latin American citizens and their culture---do not bring it here to the US----it does not help immigrants---it is not meant to protect US workers--
How Mexico's pro-industry unions undermine workers' rights
March 21, 2012 · 10:15 AM UTC
By John Otis
MEXICO CITY – During a 5.6-magnitude earthquake, Eduardo Vargas rose from his cubicle at the Atento call center in Mexico City and tried to evacuate the swaying building.
He didn’t get far. Vargas said supervisors blocked the exits and ordered panicked Atento employees to keep working.
Although no one at the call center was hurt, the shoddy treatment prompted Vargas and a few dozen co-workers to join the Mexican Telephone Workers Union to press Atento to raise their dollar-per-hour wages and improve working conditions. But to their surprise, they learned that they already belonged to a union.
That’s because when they were hired by Atento, which is owned by the Spanish telecommunications giant Telefonica, they unwittingly signed up for a pro-business union that works in cahoots with the company to suppress wages and maintain a docile labor force.
Under Mexican law, the union with the most members — in this case, the official Atento union — controls contract negotiations. As a result, Vargas and other employees who defected to the more militant Telephone Workers Union had no bargaining power.
“When unions fail to defend workers,” Vargas said, “everything is lost.”
The Atento case, which has turned into a cause célèbre for labor activists in the United States and Europe, is a prime example of the power and omnipresence of company unions which help employers in Mexico minimize costs and stand firmly in the way of workers as they try to boost their wages and working conditions. Nearly all unions in Mexico “protect the patron and not the worker,” said Maria Xelhuantzi Lopez, a political science professor at Mexico’s National Autonomous University.
She’s not exaggerating.
About 10 percent of Mexico’s labor force carries union cards but nine out of every 10 members belong to secretive and undemocratic pro-business unions, Xelhuantzi-Lopez said. Thus, she estimates the proportion of Mexican laborers who belong to real unions that fight for their rights at about 1 percent which would represent one of the lowest unionization rates in the world.
In Mexico, sham worker syndicates are known as “protection unions.” Their leaders, who often receive kickbacks, negotiate secret deals with company bosses designed to shield businesses from strikes and worker demands for substantial increases in wages and benefits. These agreements, in turn, are known as protection contracts.
Protection unions and contracts are illegal in the United States. However, about 60 percent of the foreign multinational companies operating in Mexico are US firms and “virtually all of them benefit from protection contracts,” said Robin Alexander, director of international labor affairs for the US-based United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers union.
Like Vargas and the other Atento employees, most Mexican workers are unaware they belong to protection unions because these unions don’t collect dues while union leaders have almost no contact with the labor forces they nominally represent.
They also try to hoodwink workers by employing belligerent, power-to-the-people language when, in fact, workers receive the bare minimum, said Carlos de Buen, a Mexico City labor lawyer. For example, if a business is required by law to pay workers two-week bonuses, a protection contract might state: “Under no circumstances shall the employer pay the worker anything less than a two-week bonus.”
According to a recent U.S. State Department report, the abuses are so brazen that at new job sites, companies often sign protection contracts with union leaders before they hire a single worker.
Race to the bottom
Because they rob Mexican workers of leverage, protection unions depress salaries which have been falling in real terms for the past 30 years, De Buen said. This wage stagnation also hurts American workers by encouraging US factories to relocate south of the border and by depressing Mexican demand for US exports.
“When that happens, workers in both countries get screwed,” Dan Kovalik, a top legal advisor for the United Steelworkers, told GlobalPost.
As a result, Kovalik and other US union activists, many of whom used to view Mexican factory workers as the enemy for taking their jobs, are now offering them support, advice and solidarity as they try to break the stranglehold of protection unions.
For too long, multinationals “have been able to divide us by race, border, language and political orientation, while increasing their profits,” United Auto Workers President Bob King wrote last month in a letter of support to Mexican workers who earn just $16.50 per day at a Honda auto plant and are trying to form an independent union.
“As unionists, we have to figure out how to work together regardless of our national identities,” King wrote. “Otherwise, we’re going to continue competing in a race to the bottom.”
But forming democratic unions can be a long, demoralizing march.
Since the organizing drive began at Atento following the 2009 earthquake, the government labor board has presided over three elections in which employers chose between the protection union and the independent Telephone Workers Union. But all three votes were marred by irregularities.
In some cases, management refused to release workers from their jobs to cast ballots. Others were blocked from entering voting booths by armed guards or threatened with termination if they opted for the wrong union, according to former Atento employees. Repeated requests by GlobalPost for comment from Atento were ignored.
Today, Atento’s protection union remains in place while activists, like Vargas, have lost their jobs.
“They said it was for low productivity,” said Vargas, an intense 25-year-old who now makes a living selling soda and beer at soccer games. “But everyone knows we were fired for trying to start a new union.”
The perfect dictatorship
Mexico’s protection unions are the legacy of a political system that Nobel Prize-winning novelist Mario Vargas Llosa once described as “the perfect dictatorship.”
For most of the 20th century, Mexico was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. Though sometimes compared to the old Soviet Communist Party, the PRI is credited with giving Mexico the longest period of peace in the country’s history during a time when other Latin American nations were wracked by labor upheaval, abusive military regimes and guerrilla wars. Unions, it turns out, were key to the PRI’s system of command and control.
Mexico’s largest confederation of workers, known as the CTM, was founded in 1936 as part of the PRI and affiliates automatically became party members. That allowed union bosses, like Fidel Velazquez who headed the CTM for 56 years, to deliver thousands of votes to PRI candidates.
In return, labor leaders received payoffs, political posts and other perks. Working together with business owners and government officials, union leaders would also keep their workers in line. Increases in wages and benefits were small enough to mollify companies yet just large enough to stave off worker revolts.
“It’s been said that Fidel Velazquez brought labor peace to Mexico,” De Buen said. “But it’s like the Chicago mafia of the 1930s. It’s a totally undemocratic system in which the last thing that matters is the worker.”
The PRI finally lost power in the 2000 election but subsequent administrations have maintained the unseemly triad between government, business owners and labor leaders in the name of maintaining low wages and global competitiveness.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s right-wing or left-wing, the government is an accomplice,” Xelhuantzi-Lopez said.
Mexican government officials did not respond to requests from GlobalPost for comment. However, De Buen pointed out that in a 2010 response to a complaint filed before the UN-run International Labor Organization, the government denied that protection unions and contracts even exist.
But according to the latest US State Department report on human rights, protection unions are expanding in Mexico and now cover nearly all public and private sectors of the economy. By contrast, the report noted that “workers who sought to form independent unions risked losing their jobs, as inadequate laws and poor enforcement generally failed to protect them from retaliatory dismissals.”
One of the most brazen examples of a company leaning on a protection union occurred this year at Arneses y Accesorios, which was once owned by the U.S. aluminum firm Alcoa but was sold last year to PKC Group of Finland.
Arneses y Accesorios, which is located in Ciudad Acuña on the US-Mexican border, produces wiring harnesses and components for American. cars and trucks. Many of its 7,000 workers complained about their $1.35-per-hour wages, dangerous chemical leaks and restrictions on bathroom breaks. They wanted the National Miners and Metalworkers Union, one of the few Mexican unions with a reputation for fighting hard for worker rights, to represent them.
But after the union approached PKC about contract negotiations, company executives quickly signed a protection contract with the CTM, the workers confederation that critics contend serves as a stooge for corporate interests. In a Jan. 31 message to employees at the plant, Harri Suutari, PKC Group’s president and CEO, seemed to acknowledge that the CTM had been brought in to serve the company, not the workers.
“In order to protect itself and jobs, the company has decided to sign a collective agreement with the CTM,” Suutari said. “How much will the union dues be? Nothing, because the company is going to pay them so that the CTM does not enter the plants and has nothing to do with you.”
Winning while losing
Democratic unions can prevail over protection unions but examples can be counted on one hand.
That’s why labor activists often refer to a lengthy 2010 conflict at an auto parts factory in the city of Puebla owned by Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, a Fortune 500 company with operations on six continents.
The dispute began over bonuses. Under Mexican law, 10 percent of a company’s annual profits must be shared equally among the labor force but workers were offered just $5 each. That prompted a majority of the workers signed affiliation cards with the Miners and Metalworkers Union even though the company already had a deal with a protection union.
Soon afterwards, 70 members of the protection union showed up outside the factory in a show of force. Workers also faced trumped-up accusations that they had kidnapped company executives. Still, employees held firm and eventually announced a work stoppage.
Shutting down the assembly line for very long could have affected deliveries to Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and other auto makers and might have led to major fines against Johnson Controls. As a result, the company quickly recognized the Miners and Metalworkers Union and ended its relationship with its protection union.
In the collective bargaining agreement that followed, workers who were receiving minimum wage secured a 7.5 percent salary plus school aid payments of about $50 per child and increased insurance coverage.
“It was a standout victory because it was so hard to do,” said Kovalic of the United Steelworkers which provided support and advice Johnson Controls workers. “And it’s especially significant for American workers because it involved an American company.”
Although the union uprising in Puebla lifted the spirits of Mexico’s democratic labor movement, many activists say it was an aberration in what’s turning out to be a long and perhaps unwinnable campaign.
For example, Johnson Controls this month announced plans to close the Puebla factory. Indeed, most attempts to fight back against protection unions end with lots of workers receiving pink slips.
Vargas, who was fired by Atento for his activism, refuses to give up. He is now a volunteer organizer for the independent Telephone Workers Union and is trying to sign up his former Atento co-workers, one by one.
On a recent afternoon, Vargas stood outside one of Atento’s call centers passing out leaflets detailing the low wages negotiated by the company’s protection union. But with security guards keeping close watch, most Atento workers hustled out the door at the end of their shifts and hurried past Vargas without giving him a second glance.
We watched for over a century our US labor unions and organizing doing good things for our workers although the leaders always seem to be tied to corruption-----once corporations become monopolies----our labor unions and members get busted. We can make local co-op labor businesses work----whether union-led or anti-union -------we simply need to know the goals of global Wall Street in corrupting how these good labor policies work.
Below we see how policies of co-ops place labor citizens again at odds with one another. We can do labor co-ops in LEFT SOCIAL CAPITALISM-----we do not want far-right wing industrial corporate MARXISM.
This is from where much of the protesting against a TRUMP today comes----never mentioning---never stopping the support of Clinton global Wall Street neo-liberals having killed organized labor in US these few decades AND AROUND THE WORLD IN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'In theory, Colombian co-ops are owned by the workers who provide businesses with niche expertise and split the profits. But according to labor-rights activists as well as a recent US State department report, many co-ops function as glorified temp agencies providing companies with cheap and docile non-union workers'.
US workers will never rebuild our developed-nation quality of life---a middle-class----worker's rights by MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----As we see here-----even our co-op labor structures become abusive. Think of the transition in USSR or China with Lenin/Stalin----Mao----and see INDUSTRIAL LABOR ORGANIZING----TO BENEFIT THE CORPORATIONS.......it was brutal and always is far-right authoritarian, militaristic, dictatorship extreme wealth and extreme poverty ----exactly what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---NOW TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones.
IS THIS WHY THE AFL-CIO is extending its reach into Columbia?
HOW TO FILE APPLICATIONS
TO OBTAIN FREE TRADE ZONE STATUS
República de Colombia
Ministerio de Comercio,
Industria y Turismo
República de Colombia
Ministerio de Hacienda
y Crédito Público
Invest in Colombia
Free trade zone coming to Columbia---AFL-CIO is there promoting Foreign Economic Zone expansions knowing this global labor pool will enslave our workers.
'Meet the New Boss'
March 01, 2012 · 10:45 AM UTC
By John Otis
PUENTE SOGAMOSO, Colombia — Sweating in the mid-morning heat, Eusebio Rodriguez leads an oxcart between towering palm trees to gather their purple-and-orange fruit, which is used to make palm oil.
Rodriguez, who earns about $15 a day for harvesting a ton and a half of palm fruit, would like to sign up with the local union. That would mean perks, like sick leave and paid vacations, as well as a helmet and gloves to protect his body from the porcupine-like spines protruding from the fruit.
Instead, Rodriguez belongs to a cooperative which offers almost no benefits or job security.
In theory, Colombian co-ops are owned by the workers who provide businesses with niche expertise and split the profits. But according to labor-rights activists as well as a recent US State department report, many co-ops function as glorified temp agencies providing companies with cheap and docile non-union workers.
Because they allow businesses to reduce labor costs, discard workers on a whim, and eliminate the threat of strikes, co-ops have flourished in Colombia. They’ve also sucked the lifeblood from organized labor because co-op members can’t join unions. That’s because rather than cogs in the means of production, co-op workers like Rodriguez are considered under Colombian law to be business owners.
“But I'm not the owner of anything,” said Rodriguez, 29, a barely literate high-school dropout and the father of two toddlers. “I hardly earn enough money to buy food.”
The outsourcing of labor in Colombia is part of a broad trend as employers around the world seek to shed costs and responsibility for workers. Rock-bottom wages, in turn, have led to a migration of manufacturing, agricultural and other jobs from the United States to Latin America and Asia.
“We would like there to be a somewhat level playing field for US workers,” Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who closely follows labor issues in Colombia, told GlobalPost. “But for that to happen, workers must not be intimidated.”
In Colombia, however, the dark legacy of violence against organized labor, often keeps workers from demanding better conditions and denouncing abusive labor structures like co-ops.
“Colombian workers have the right to stand up and fight back,” said Celeste Drake, an international trade policy specialist at the AFL-CIO in Washington. “But it’s especially difficult when there has been this quarter century of terror directed against union members.”
According to the Colombian government, headed by President Juan Manuel Santos, the most abusive co-ops may be on their way out.
In exchange for ratification in October of a trade agreement, that will allow $15 billion per year in Colombian goods to enter the United States duty-free, the Santos government committed to a long list of labor reforms.
A key provision of this so-called Labor Action Plan, which convinced several wavering Democrats to support the trade agreement, is that co-ops acting as temp-agencies-in-disguise must be sanctioned or shut down while businesses contracting their services must also be punished.
During meetings with US officials in February, Colombian Labor Minister Rafael Pardo said that after complaints from trade unions, the government recently fined a palm-oil company and five co-ops a total of more than $6.5 million for abusing workers' rights. According to one Colombian official, the fines are just the beginning of a broader crackdown.
But in Puente Sogamoso, a village in northern Colombia surrounded by an emerald-green carpet of palm plantations, workers affiliated with co-ops still outnumber the sector’s unionized labor force by more than 10 to one, according to Miguel Conde, an official with the local chapter of Sintrainagro, Colombia’s main farm workers union.
Due to legal restrictions, intimidation and the rise of the co-ops, Conde said, “it’s now easier to form a guerrilla group than a union.”
Contracting amid the boom
At a palm-oil plant called Las Brisas on the outskirts of Puente Sogamoso, massive ovens sterilize clusters of palm fruit, about the size of beach balls, which are then fed into presses that extract the raw oil from the pulp. The steam clouds, heat and roar of the machines recall the mills of the Industrial Revolution. Yet the refined, amber-colored liquid meets many modern-day demands.
Used for baked goods and other foods, palm oil contains no trans fats, a major health concern in recent years. And as alternative fuels catch on, palm oil has become a key ingredient in biodiesel. Demand is soaring. US imports of palm oil have jumped tenfold over the past decade.
Over that same period, Colombia’s palm-oil production has nearly doubled to 942,000 tons annually, according to the country’s Palm Oil Federation. That makes Colombia Latin America’s top producer of palm oil and the fifth largest in the world.
Yet even as employment in the sector has swelled, union membership plummeted.
In the Puente Sogamoso region in 1990, nearly half of all palm-oil workers carried union cards. Anticipating further growth, enthusiastic union officials built a meeting hall the size of a high-school gymnasium, by far the largest building in the town.
“We knew the palm-oil expansion was going to be huge,” said Carlos Daniel Ardila, president of the local chapter of Sintrainagro. But, he said, “nearly all the new workers belonged to co-ops, so we couldn’t sign them up.”
Among the roughly 5,000 palm oil workers in the region today, only 350 carry union cards, Ardila said.
Behind his office, the cavernous union hall sat empty. Stashed in a corner were rolled up protest banners and a broken bullhorn, while the only sign of life was a swarm of wasps. Ardila said the union is now so weak that not even his daughter, who has a coveted full-time job at Las Brisas, wants to join.
Palm-oil company officials openly applaud the demise of the unions, which they say have only damaged their industry by holding strikes. By contrast, they credit the co-ops with helping them prosper in a highly competitive market in which producer countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have the advantage with far lower labor costs.
On average, co-op workers cost companies about 30 percent less than unionized employees because they do not receive certain benefits, such as paid vacations, year-end bonuses, and salary boosts for seniority. They are also more cost-effective, according to Leon Dario Uribe, general manager of Las Brisas.
While union members receive monthly salaries, co-op workers are paid by how much palm fruit they collect. Union members routinely collect about 1,200 kg per day, Uribe said, while co-op members average 1,800 kg.
“Co-ops were not designed to destroy the unions. They were designed to increase productivity,” Uribe said.
Jens Mesa, the president of the Palm Oil Federation, said the sector is being unfairly singled out. He said plantations provide jobs in poor areas and pointed to a recent study by a respected Bogota think-tank that concluded palm workers receive better wages and benefits than 80 percent of all other Colombian farm laborers.
“You have to put all this in perspective,” Mesa said.
But according to the US State Department’s most recent report on human rights in Colombia, the spread of co-ops has allowed palm oil and other businesses to sidestep labor laws. “This practice limited worker rights and undermined worker protections by preventing unionization,” the report said.
For example, temporary workers may only be used for short-term or seasonal jobs. But until recently, these laws did not apply to co-op members because they are — supposedly — small business owners rather than employees. Many end up working full-time hours on a series of temporary contracts but without the benefits of full-time employees.
Though they often complain about their employment status, co-op members cannot legally call work stoppages.
“That’s the main reason why companies like co-ops," said Ricardo Aricapa of the National Labor School, a Medellin-based research center. "If you avoid unions, you avoid strikes.”
The New Imperialism
Colombian unions are notorious for knee-jerk left-wing politics, and to that end Sintrainagro falls neatly into line. Taped to the wall at its union hall in Puente Sogamoso is a poster denouncing the presence of American military advisors in Colombia. It says: “Imperialists get out!”
Yet in the showdown with the co-ops, Washington has become labor’s new best friend.
A large section of the Labor Action Plan — the side agreement to the US-Colombia free trade pact — takes direct aim at the co-ops. For example, it requires that Colombia speed up implementation of a 2010 law that prohibits co-ops from acting as temp agencies. It also calls on Colombia to hire 100 new labor inspectors, half of whom are to be devoted to monitoring co-ops in the palm-oil industry and other sectors.
Some observers say it was no coincidence that the $6.5 million in fines announced by the government last month came just days before Pardo, the labor minister, arrived in Washington to present a progress report on Colombia’s compliance.
“This is the Colombian government’s first action in the past 30 years that actually benefits workers. But without the free-trade agreement it would not be happening,” said Aricapa of the National Labor School.
“This is labor’s 15 minutes,” he added. “They have to seize the moment.”
Aricapa and other analysts claim that if the Labor Action Plan is strictly enforced, nearly all the co-ops in the palm-oil industry would be shuttered and plantations would be forced to hire more direct workers who would then have the right to join unions. Better wages and benefits, in turn, could help more of these workers to reach the middle class.
“Part of Colombia’s future economic success is going to depend on whether they can grow a middle class,” Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), who is part of a congressional group monitoring compliance with the action plan, told GlobalPost. “For their economy and for their own security, paying attention to some of these basic economic rights and values is important.”
But the Santos government is facing fierce resistance.
Uribe, whose Las Brisas company was sanctioned by the Labor Ministry in February, insists that the co-ops working for his company are legal and said he would appeal the fine. He added that if companies are forced to hire more full-time employees, it would slam the brakes on a growing industry.
And in an odd twist, it’s the palm-oil producers who are now complaining about yanqui imperialists.
Mesa, the head of the Palm Oil Federation, suggested the Labor Action Plan was a way for US agribusiness to saddle Colombian palm-oil producers with higher costs even as the free-trade agreement opens the door here for cheap, imported oils from the United States. He called the US-mandated plan “humiliating.”
Colombian officials point out they have only 1,400 inspectors to monitor companies and co-ops throughout the nation. But in an interview with GlobalPost, Pardo, the labor minister, insisted: “We will bring them in line.”
Rep. Miller, who met with Pardo in Washington last month, said the Colombian government seems committed to charting a new course in spite of the huge challenges.
“This is a difficult history to unravel, to redirect and get a new start on,” Miller said. “There are a lot of vested interests and people who think (the co-op model) is the way it should be.”
Miller has a point. Even as some co-ops are being sanctioned and shut down, union activists claim they are being replaced by similar agencies that provide the same, cheap, non-union labor — in effect co-ops by another name.
Or, in the words of McGovern: “Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.”\
We speak of our Historically Black Colleges like a HOWARD UNIVERSITY tying itself to global Wall Street economics-----below we see that history and yes---there is that RHODES SCHOLAR Locke-----just as RHODES SCHOLAR Clinton-----these are pathways for citizens thought to be SHOW ME THE MONEY AND I'LL DO ANYTHING GLOBAL WALL STREET SAYS people---that 5% to the 1%. Then we see the Bahai International Community BIC tied to the United Nations----these folks and organizations started the WORLD CITIZENSHIP movement as early as 1950. This is indeed when EMPIRE-BUILDING in the US started to MOVE FORWARD.
We can bet these are the same international groups---NGOs tied to MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies as well-----
Our international labor union leaders are tied to these same United Nations ----WORLD CITIZENSHIP groups. All of them promote the ideal of BRINGING PEACE AND HARMONY to global citizens if we are ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---but notice these several decades of Foreign Economic Zone and global Wall Street neo-liberalism how peaceful and harmonizing this all is?
Of course global citizens are being pummeled and forced into these global structures. The goals are totalitarianism with that global 1% soon to be minus even a 2% if SMART CITIES policies continue. The same is now coming to US---Europe brought to us by these same GLOBAL NGO organizations. They will be those MARXIST rebels----those promoting BASIC INCOME pretending there really is a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP IN THE US for immigrants---when the only pathway MOVING FORWARD in the US is having our cities look like third world Foreign Economic Zones overseas.
World Citizenship: Mirage or Reality?
Address by Alain Locke
Professor of Philosophy at Howard University
May 18, 1947
Given at the regular Sunday morning meeting
of the New York Society for Ethical Culture
2 West 64th Street
New York City
Alain Leroy Locke (September 13, 1885 – June 9, 1954) was an American writer, philosopher, educator, and patron of the arts. Distinguished as the first African American Rhodes Scholar in 1907, Locke was the philosophical architect —the acknowledged "Dean"— of the Harlem Renaissance. As a result, popular listings of influential African-Americans have repeatedly included him. On March 19, 1968, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed: "We're going to let our children know that the only philosophers that lived were not Plato and Aristotle, but W. E. B. Du Bois and Alain Locke came through the universe."
The Bahá'í International Community, or the BIC, is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) representing the members of the Bahá'í Faith; it was first chartered in March 1948 with the United Nations, and currently has affiliates in over 180 countries and territories.
Hilda Yen was a founding and key figure in the establishment of the BIC according to Mildred Mottahedeh. Mottahedeh underscored Yen's service upon her death in 1970: "This noble lady played an important role in the development of the Baha'i Faith in the international field, and it was through her efforts that the Baha'is began their work with the United Nations", and wrote a memorial.
World Citizenship: A Global Ethic for Sustainable Development
This statement was submitted by the Bahá’í International Community to the first session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, New York, 14-25 June 1993. It proposes a campaign to promote world citizenship within a framework for reorienting education, public awareness, and training toward sustainable development.
In the spirit of Agenda 21, as “a dynamic programme” destined to “evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances,”1 ,the Bahá’í International Community offers the following proposal: To inspire the peoples of the world to champion sustainable development, the education programs and public awareness campaigns called for in Agenda 21 should foster the concept of WORLD CITIZENSHIP.
The Vision of World Citizenship
The greatest challenge facing the world community as it mobilizes to implement Agenda 21 is to release the enormous financial, technical, human and moral resources required for sustainable development. These resources will be freed up only as the peoples of the world develop a profound sense of responsibility for the fate of the planet and for the well-being of the entire human family.
This sense of responsibility can only emerge from the acceptance of the oneness of humanity and will only be sustained by a unifying vision of a peaceful, prosperous world society. Without such a global ethic, people will be unable to become active, constructive participants in the world-wide process of sustainable development.2
While Agenda 21 provides an indispensable framework of scientific knowledge and technical know-how for the implementation of sustainable development, it does not inspire personal commitment to a global ethic. This is not to say that ethics and values were ignored during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) process. The call for unifying values was heard throughout this process from Heads of State to UN officials to representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individual citizens. In particular, the concepts of “unity in diversity,” “world citizenship” and “our common humanity” were invoked to serve as the ethical undergirding for Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.3
The world community has, thus, already come to a basic accord on the need for a global ethic to vitalize Agenda 21. We suggest that the term World Citizenship be adopted to encompass the constellation of principles, values, attitudes and behaviors that the peoples of the world must embrace if sustainable development is to be realized.
World citizenship begins with an acceptance of the oneness of the human family and the interconnectedness of the nations of “the earth, our home.”4 While it encourages a sane and legitimate patriotism, it also insists upon a wider loyalty, a love of humanity as a whole. It does not, however, imply abandonment of legitimate loyalties, the suppression of cultural diversity, the abolition of national autonomy, nor the imposition of uniformity. Its hallmark is “unity in diversity.” World citizenship encompasses the principles of social and economic justice, both within and between nations; non-adversarial decision making at all levels of society; equality of the sexes; racial, ethnic, national and religious harmony; and the willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Other facets of world citizenship – including the promotion of human honor and dignity, understanding, amity, cooperation, trustworthiness, compassion and the desire to serve – can be deduced from those already mentioned. A few of these principles5 have been articulated in Agenda 21 – most, however, are noticeably lacking. Moreover, no overall conceptual framework is provided under which they can be harmonized and promulgated.
Fostering world citizenship is a practical strategy for promoting sustainable development. So long as disunity, antagonism and provincialism characterize the social, political and economic relations within and among nations, a global, sustainable pattern of development can not be established.6 Over a century ago Bahá’u’lláh warned, “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” Only upon a foundation of genuine unity, harmony and understanding among the diverse peoples and nations of the world, can a sustainable global society be erected.
We, therefore, recommend that world citizenship be taught in every school and that the oneness of humanity – the principle underlying world citizenship – be constantly asserted in every nation.
The concept of world citizenship is not new to the world community. It is both implicit and explicit in a host of UN documents, charters and agreements, including the opening words of the UN Charter itself: “We the peoples of the United Nations ...” It is already being promoted around the world across all cultures by diverse NGOs, academics, citizens’ groups, entertainers, educational programs, artists, and media. These efforts are significant but need to be greatly increased. A carefully planned and orchestrated, long-term campaign to foster world citizenship, involving all sectors of society – local, national and international – needs to be put into place. It must be pursued with all the vigor, moral courage and conviction that the United Nations, its member states and all willing partners can muster.
The Promotion of World Citizenship
The following proposal for a campaign to promote world citizenship7 fits naturally into the framework for reorienting education, public awareness, and training toward sustainable development, which is presented in Chapter 36 of Agenda 21.
EducationEducation – formal, non-formal, and informal – is indisputably the most effective way to shape values, attitudes, behaviors and skills that will equip the peoples of the world to act in the long-term interests of the planet and humanity as a whole.8 The United Nations, governments and educational agencies should seek to make the principle of world citizenship part of the standard education of every child.
The details of educational programs and activities incorporating this principle will vary a great deal within and among nations. However, if world citizenship is to be understood as a universal principle, all programs must have certain aspects in common. Based on the principle of the oneness of the human race, they should cultivate tolerance and brotherhood, nurturing an appreciation for the richness and importance of the world’s diverse cultural, religious and social systems and strengthening those traditions that contribute to a sustainable, world civilization. They should teach the principle of “unity in diversity” as the key to strength and wealth both for nations and for the world community. They should foster an ethic of service to the common good and convey an understanding of both the rights and the responsibilities of world citizenship. These programs and activities should build on the country’s positive efforts and highlight its tangible successes, including models of racial, religious, national and ethnic unity. They should emphasize the importance of the UN in promoting global cooperation and understanding; its universal goals, objectives and programs; its immediate relevance to the peoples and nations of the world; and the role that it must increasingly assume in our ever-contracting world.
Before undertaking a campaign to promote world citizenship, a common understanding of the concept will need to be developed and agreed upon. The Commission on Sustainable Development might set up a special committee or working group to begin developing guidelines for world citizenship and proposals for incorporating this principle into existing formal and non-formal educational programs. Alternatively, the Commission might seek the assistance of the High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development or the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development. The UN Secretariat might even choose to set up a world citizenship Unit, similar to the erstwhile Peace Studies Unit, to develop these guidelines and coordinate the system-wide implementation of world citizenship education. Whatever path is chosen, this task must be given high priority.
World citizenship could be incorporated easily into all of the activities suggested in chapter 36.5. of Agenda 21 for reorienting education toward sustainable development. A few examples illustrate:
- National advisory bodies/round tables (36.5.c) should facilitate the incorporation of world citizenship into educational programs within the country.
- Pre-service and in-service training programs for all teachers, administrators, educational planners and non-formal educators (36.5.d) should include the principle of world citizenship in their programs.
- Educational materials on sustainable development produced by UN agencies should encourage world citizenship (36.5.g), as should educational materials about the United Nations.
- Agenda 21 calls for “the development of an international network” to support global efforts to educate for sustainable development (36.5.k). This network could both encourage UN agencies and member NGOs to create materials based on the guidelines for world citizenship, and provide the means for sharing them.
- Governments and educational authorities have already been called upon to “eliminate gender stereotyping in curricula” as a means to promote sustainable development (36.5.m). We would recommend that, in the spirit of world citizenship, stereotyping based on religion, culture, race, class, nationality and ethnicity also be eliminated.
People need to think of themselves as world citizens and understand their personal responsibility to promote sustainable development.9 Campaigns to raise public awareness of the challenges of world citizenship must make use of the full range of media and the arts, including television, video, film, radio, electronic networks, books, magazines, posters, flyers, theater and music. These campaigns should enlist the advertising and entertainment industries, the media – both traditional and non-traditional – the entire UN system, all member states, NGOs, and popular personalities. They should reach out to the home, the work place, public areas and schools. The guidelines for world citizenship called for above should be appropriate for use by such public awareness campaigns and should serve as basic reference for all media programming.
World citizenship could be included in the activities presented in chapter 36.10. Of Agenda 21 for increasing public awareness and sensitivity about sustainable development. The following examples illustrate:
- National and international advisory boards (36.10.a) could encourage the various media to adopt the guidelines for world citizenship. The media have done much to raise public awareness of global interdependence and the enormous challenges facing the world community. They have also highlighted the seemingly insurmountable differences that divide us.
- The media have a responsibility to help people understand that diversity need not be a source of conflict; rather, diversity can and must now serve as a resource for sustainable development. They can do so by focusing on the constructive, unifying and cooperative undertakings that prove humanity’s capacity to work together to meet the enormous challenges facing it.
- In promoting “a cooperative relationship with the media” (36.10.e), the United Nations must boldly define its own identity and the promise it holds for the world community. The United Nations was established on high ideals and with a vision of a peaceful, progressive world. By providing a framework for communication and cooperation, and by initiating innumerable, constructive projects, it has added significantly to the understanding, hope and goodwill in the world. Yet its accomplishments are little known to the generality of mankind.
- Using the concept of world citizenship as an integrating theme, the United Nations should publicize its ideals, activities and goals, so that people come to understand the unique and vital role the UN plays in the world and, therefore, in their lives. Similarly, the UN should promote world citizenship in all its public activities, including celebrations of its historical milestones and tours of UN headquarters. Every UN document that deals with sustainable development should also include this principle – beginning with the preamble of the proposed Earth Charter. World citizenship must become the single most important point of ethical reference in all UN activities.
- The services of the advertising industry (36.10.e) should be enlisted to promote world citizenship. Campaigns could be organized around such themes as:
- We the Peoples of the United Nations: Celebrating Unity in Diversity
- One Planet, One People
- In All Our Diversity, We Are One Human Family
- Our Common Future: Unity in Diversity
- World citizenship should also be promoted – internationally, nationally and locally – through the holding of contests and the presentation of awards (36.10.e).
- While heightening public awareness “regarding the impacts of violence in society” (36.10.l), the media can generate commitment to world citizenship by highlighting examples of constructive, unifying undertakings that show the power of unity and common vision.
The Challenge of World Citizenship
In conclusion, world citizenship is a concept as challenging and dynamic as the opportunities facing the world community. We, the peoples and nations of the world, would be wise to embrace courageously its underlying principles and be guided by them in all aspects of our lives – from our personal and community relations to our national and international affairs; from our schools, work places and media to our legal, social and political institutions. We, therefore, urge the Commission to encourage the entire UN system to incorporate the principle of world citizenship into the full range of its programs and activities.
The Bahá’í International Community, which for over a century has been fostering world citizenship, would be pleased to assist the Commission, governments, NGOs and others to further develop the concepts contained in this document; to provide practical models of racial, religious, national and ethnic unity for sustainable development; and to take part in consultations on this crucial issue. As a global community encompassing the diversity of humanity and sharing a common vision, the Bahá’í International Community will continue to promote sustainable development by encouraging people to see themselves as citizens of one world, the builders of a just and prosperous world civilization.