C. Pangus wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r9ednSRxcOoAKsvZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

C. Pangus wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message

[...]

It may be a good idea for the unions and illegals to cooperate. If they
fight against each other, they just accomplish an other goal of the
plutocracy.

No supporting facts or reason dapra . . .

Here is how I see the unions;

In the 60's and 70's they colluded with management to rip off the average
citizens. All special interest do it. But the unions should have realized
that they need the support of the ones who were not allowed into the
union, and earn less than union wages.

The relationship between unions and management was never collusion
against average citizens. Their relationship was adversarial and
management has always tried to suppress unions. The interest of unions
was there members, with of course, a certain amount of self-agrandizement
by leaders, same as with management.

I know of no instances were people were "not allowed" into unions. With
the auto companies all that was required was employment within a
unionized company. With the trades such as electricians and plumbers
there is a long historical record (hundreds of years) of apprenticeship
and training before union acceptance.

Reagan started a war on them, and there were few on their side. Factories
moved to the south, and there were few on their side.
Why? Because American unions were too greedy to get what they can, and
did not realize that they supposed to be the vanguard of the working
class not the 'aristocrats' of the working class.

Reagan didn't "start" the union/management war, though he did pursue it
vigorously with those such as the air traffic controllers. It was
somewhat of a divide and conquer strategy. Would millions of UAW members
go on strike over thousands of traffic controllers? There was no union
connection between the two.

The lack of general public action in support of unions was probably a
good thing: the marketplace determined what wages were supportable by
what prices they would pay for products.

The interests of unions has always been that of their members, not the
general public. They have helped the general public in exploring humane
work standards, wages, safety, etc. Too bad standards such as health
care were limited within unions to the detriment of any general public
outcry for health care and stronger retirement pay laws by the government
such as most all other industrialized nations have.

So the unions were practically killed with the approval of the public.
Than business with the help of the captured politician attacked the rest
of the workers. NAFTA, open borders, globalization.

I don't think unions suffered greatly untill globalization and openning
markets came along (they still aren't "killed"). Manufacturing unions
started hurting with the influx of Asian products like textiles and autos
way back in the 60's when the government gave them no import protection
at the behest of corporations. Ironically, those same imports are
seriously hurting or killing those same corporations.

Trade unions are only now beginning to feel the pinch seriously with the
import of illegal aliens. Manufacturing unions are very effective at
preventing illegals gaining employment.

The scheme was clear to me in the mid 80's. The globalization by the
early 90's. But the unions and the middle class let themselves slowly
cooked by the corporate plutocracy.

I agree that the corporate influence on government has been a major cause
of the problem. Until there is real campaign reform to get money out of
elections and lobbyists are outright outlawed it won't happen.
Unfortunately, anyone who opposes the corporate controlled government
can't get on the ballot, let alone elected to change the laws.

That's why I think some new blood and energy can reinvigorate the
flaccid, subservient workers of America.

The reason the illegals are employed is because they are "flaccid,
subservient workers" from fear of being fired without recourse due to
their illegal status. Like all amalgamations, US workers will become
more subservient as the il are as they become more demanding as we are.
The only ones who win are the governments and corporations who are
pitting the illegals and citizens against one another. The US government
should represent ALL US citizens and NO illegal immigrants.

Enough "facts or reason", Pangus?

Since we have often agreed on many issues I am trying not to be
confrontational. However, I think your facts are wrong and your reason
faulty on this issue.

Realizing that the Mexican government is profiting in encouraging
illegals by not having to deal with the social problems of their country
through exporting them, and that the US government is allowing that
illegal immigration at corporate behest for political advancement is the
basic issue.

I am not unsympathetic with the plight of the illegals, but their
personal gain in coming here makes things worse for both much greater
numbers of US workers and those they abandon back home. If they care so
much about their national flag they should stay home and fight for it.

Well, we might just have to disagree. The immigration laws should have
been enforced 10 -20 years ago. On the employers, not building fancies!

Now it's too late to deport 12 million undocumented. Hostility between

the undocumenteds and the wage earners, unions would be just the icing on
the cake for the ones who sold the American people 'down the river'.

Choosing May Day for the demonstrations, boycott, one may call it a
strike, was significant too. I don't think you recognize it.

In article <kUQ5g.6272$An2.1832@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, C.
Pangus at

"Maxwell Edison" <ME@goawayspammers.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ec10fc870bda1f79899ab@netnews.mchsi.com...

In article <%xx5g.112$Ae1.38@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, C.
Pangus at

"Maxwell Edison" <ME@goawayspammers.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ebe977b6cb5e8ed989998@netnews.mchsi.com...

In article <UE45g.11133$sq5.9843@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
C.
Pangus at

Along with outsourcing, illegal immigration is one of the chief
causes
of
union decline.

Asking union members to march with illegals is asking them to cut
their
own
economic throats.

Cesar Chavez would disagree with you. All workers should be in
solidarity. People's legal residence is a different issue.

Chavez was not an illegal.

Who said he was? Chavez organized workers, both documented and
undocumented.

You need to provide some sort of quotes or other information from Chavez
before you can invoke his name in support of your position.

Well, interestingly enough, it's somewhat complex. Here is a Chavez
quote at a Congressional hearing...

"=3F when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the
employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal
alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and
assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance
in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. =3F
The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human
contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of
strikebreaking=3F" - Cesar Chavez

Note that Chavez is indeed complaining about illegal aliens, but also
note he is complaining about illegal alien *strikebreakers*.

Here is some more...

Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic, =3FCesar
Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as
effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and
the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS,
for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as
strikebreakers or refused to unionize.=3F

Note the "who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize" part.

In my mind, Chavez was first and foremost a union organizer, trying to
lift workers out of severe conditions. As to todays debate, I cannot
say that he would support open borders.

People make the argument that undocumented illegal aliens drive down
wages because they will accept below-the-table jobs.

On the other hand, people say making them documented would 1) force
employers to pay everyone equally, and 2) allow the workers to join
unions. My guess is that Chavez would be on this side.

You ignore my point that illegals take jobs from legals whether they
be
migrants or native born.

You might as well argue that anyone who has a job has taken it away
from someone else.

Ridiculous! Illegals generally compete for low income jobs.

OK, let me say it this way...

You might as well argue that anyone who has a low income job has taken
it away from someone else.

For everyone who has a job to have "taken it away from someone else"
unemployment would have to be 50%, with every job having a qualified
applicant unemployed.

Thanks for making my point. It is you that is saying that one group of
people has taken jobs away from another.

I know the rant about "law-abiding." The point is if Congress grants
amnesty and offers a method for the undocumented to become documented,
then all the yelling about "illegals" should be over and we can all go
back to organizing unions to help these people in their plight.