Guest worker impasse threatens immigration reformers

Washington Examiner Editorial:

The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce made a big show of solidarity last month, claiming they had "found common ground" on immigration and had come up with "principles [that] should guide legislation." Many news outlets reported this as a "breakthrough" on the path to comprehensive reform. We were skeptical at the time, noting that the "principles" were merely a series of vague platitudes that didn't spell out particulars of a bill. Conspicuously absent was a clear agreement on the main issue separating Big Labor and Big Business: a guest-worker program.

Our skepticism was vindicated when AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka conceded to ABC earlier this month that they hadn't yet reached a deal with the Chamber.

Neither the Chamber nor the unions have any problem with legalizing illegal immigrants. The devil is in the details. What Big Business wants out of the deal is the cheap labor that a guest-worker program would provide -- something Big Labor cannot abide. Unions argue there's no labor shortage, and that these programs hold down wages for native workers. There's also the problem that it is very hard to organize and collect dues from temporary workers.

Reports last Friday indicated that talks between Big Labor and Big Business were at an impasse. Why does all this matter? Because this same issue helped torpedo Congress's last attempt at comprehensive reform back in 2007.

...

... Big Labor is reportedly demanding a series of conditions to the guest-worker program. These include: setting the workers' wages above the prevailing wage; preventing the program from applying to most construction jobs; and creating a trigger that would let it apply only when unemployment falls below a certain level. Any of these provisions would defeat the purpose of a guest-worker program, as far as Big Business is concerned.

...

The guest worker program is needed to deter future illegal immigration.  It is a way to get control of the process and prevent these workers from becoming permanent residents.  I suspect that Big Labor would prefer to have the current situation because they see permanent residents as more likely to join unions and vote for Democrats in the next amnesty they they would inevitably push.  They don't seem to mind the competition with their union members if they see a path to membership and dues collection.