Immigrant Children, Unions and Home Healtcare Workers, Iraq

Flood of Immigrant Children at U.S. Border Demands Action to Reform Failed U.S. Immigration Policies

Posted July 9, 2014

MP3 Interview with Jeanne Atkinson, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, conducted by Scott Harris

immigration

In recent weeks, the large number of unaccompanied children from Central America crossing the U.S.-Mexican border has captured headlines and prompted a renewed national debate on immigration reform. The surge also set off an ugly anti-immigration protest on July 1 that blocked three government buses transporting 140 immigrant children and their mothers to a border patrol station in Murietta, California.

A combination of extreme poverty, violence and misinformation about U.S. immigration policy has encouraged an estimated 50,000 child immigrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to make the dangerous journey to America’s border over the past nine months. To respond to the influx, the Obama administration has requested $3.7 billion in emergency funds to pay for an increase in the number of immigration judges, border patrol agents, aerial surveillance and new detention facilities.

While many conservative legislators are calling for the immediate deportation of these children, The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008, requires that children entering the U.S. from nations other than Canada and Mexico without a guardian, must appear before an immigration judge. The law also recommends that minor immigrants should have access to an attorney and an advocate, placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child – and be reunited with family members when possible. In recent days, White House officials have suggested that they may seek flexibility in enforcing the law’s requirements. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Jeanne Atkinson, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, or CLINIC. Here, she examines the conditions in Central America that led to the arrival of large numbers of immigrant children and the options open to President Obama to use his executive power to address the current crisis and advance a more just immigration policy.

Find more about the Catholic Legal Immigration Network or CLINIC, by visiting cliniclegal.org.

Related Links:

  • National Council of La Raza at  nclr.org
  • “Protesters in Murrieta block detainees’ buses in tense standoff,” Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2014
  • “Obama Seeks Nearly $4 Billion for Immigration Crisis,” New York Times, July 8, 2014
  • “Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking,” New York Times, July 7, 2014

    In Further Erosion of Union Rights, Supreme Court Rules Home Care Workers Don’t Have to Pay Union Dues

    Posted July 9, 2014

    MP3 Interview with Kenneth Margolies, a senior associate at the Worker Institute at Cornell University, conducted by Melinda Tuhus

    homecareThe Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v Quinn, an important labor rights case on June 30, was understandably overshadowed by the justice’s controversial Hobby Lobby decision that allowed privately held for-profit companies the right to deny birth control coverage to their employees, based on an employers’ religious beliefs.

    In Harris v Quinn, the Court ruled that certain home health care workers are “partial public employees” because they are paid through Medicaid to provide care for their own family members. The conservative majority’s decision means that workers who choose not to join a union do not have to pay union dues in an Illinois district where a majority of home care workers voted to be represented by the Service Employees International Union. That ruling was partially based on the free speech rights of those employees.

    The conservative court majority specifically said they were not overturning the precedent case in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which declared every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay union dues supporting the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities. But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, called into question the Abood precedent, inviting a future challenge – signaling that conservative justices may be ready to overturn it, which would spell disaster for the American labor movement.  Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Kenneth Margolies, a senior associate at the Worker Institute at Cornell University. Here he explains what the Harris v Quinn ruling means and the impact it could have on public employees and the broader labor movement.

    KENNETH MARGOLIES: The Supreme Court ruled in this specific case of the home care workers involved that they did not have an obligation to pay that fee because it violated their free speech rights. And so, but it only applies to those particular employees because the Court found they were not full public employees, but partial public employees.

    BETWEEN THE LINES: I guess from the point of view of some of these workers who are taking care of their own family members and who chose not to join the union, do you think that’s a legitimate distinction from full public employees?

    KENNETH MARGOLIES: Well, it is a somewhat unusual work situation, where somebody is being paid to care for their relative, and the basis for that is that either the family member wouldn’t get any care because the caregiver member would have to get another job, or the total income for the family would be so low that it’d be hard to survive. I think that’s why they decided this was a reasonable thing to do. Plus, you know, being cared for by a family member is usually preferable to someone you don’t know. But I think in terms of are they employees or not, it’s kind of non-traditional employment, and I think there’s been a lot of activity lately of jobs that people didn’t think of quite as full employees, that they’re now thinking of as employees, like nannies and home cleaners, who have generally been excluded from the labor laws. And so they’re now saying, Look at what we do. We do important work. If we didn’t do it, someone else would have to do it. We should be treated like any other worker.

    BETWEEN THE LINES: So in that sense it’s an advance for workers, but in other ways, like this Supreme Court decision, we seem to be moving backwards. What do you think will be the impact of this decision?

    KENNETH MARGOLIES: I think this decision is eroding some of the basic foundations of unionism in the U.S. People sometimes look at this issue: Should you pay a fee even if you don’t want to be a member? Maybe you disagree with the union. The main reason that happened was because in days when violence was often used, or blacklisting and things like that, if people weren’t required by the contract to join, the employer would work on them individually to quit. And that’s a lot of it. It’s also to support the work of the union, which is a lot of work, and so it should be supported by everyone who benefits from it. But I think there’s been a steady stream of things that are eroding the power of unions, and I think this will contribute to it by kind of whittling away at who is an employee and who isn’t. I think it’s no secret that Justice Alito, who wrote the opinion, has a very, very low opinion of organized labor and probably would have gone further if he’d had the votes.

    BETWEEN THE LINES: It sounds like you see this decision as opening the door wider to anti-union moves. What do you think is a possible response from the union movement and supporters of unions?

    KENNETH MARGOLIES: You know, there’s a number of things that unions know they need to do and they’ve been doing their best to pursue them. There’s no one thing. There’s probably a legal strategy that I’m not that up on because I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure the lawyers involved have one. But I think,  broader, unions have to do everything they can to increase the loyalty of their members, so there are fewer and fewer people who choose not to join. And it’s interesting, because in Right to Work states, mostly in the South, there are many examples of where unions get 90 percent membership, because they’re forced to, and they have a lot of effort to talk to each person and they understand what a union’s about and why they should be supportive. In a situation, where you get the money anyway, it allows unions to be a little more lax and not necessarily make the effort to talk to everyone and explain to them what the union’s about. So you have a kind of reservoir of people who are anywhere from indifferent to the union to perhaps (those) resentful that they have to pay.

    For more information about the Worker Institute at Cornell University, visit ilr.cornell.edu/workerinstitute.

    Related Links:

 


Share This Episode