[Marxism] Employers fire hundreds for skipping work to join Latino immigrants' marches

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The more undocumented immigrants, other immigrants, and suppiorters are
able to be bold and assertive, and insistent on their rights, the worse
it is for their employers.  While these employers have sound material
reasons to oppose expelling the undocumented en masse, they prefer to
hire them as humble pariahs.  How can they impose minimum -- or even
lower than minimum -- wages, sexual and other harassment, unsafe working
conditions on people who are emerging as powerful and united fighters?
So these firings are about a lot more than missing a day of work, which
immigrant workers, like others, do from time to time.  This is an
attempt to crack down on a movement that threatens to shake up the
social relations the employers represent and need.

For instance, what becomes of THEIR power to use the INS against restive
workers if  deportation becomes more difficult because of mass
struggles.  These nationalist, Latino pride, working class protests are
part of the working-class struggle against the conditions these workers
face here as well as for their right to be here.
Fred Feldman


April 15, 2006

For Immigrants and Business, Rift on Protests

By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/monica_dav
ey/index.html?inline=nyt-per> MONICA DAVEY

In Bonita Springs, Fla., 10 restaurant workers were fired this week
after skipping their shifts to attend a rally against legislation in
Congress cracking down on illegal immigrants. In Tyler, Tex., 22 welders
lost their jobs making parts for air-conditioners after missing work for
a similar demonstration in that city.

And so it went for employees of an asbestos removal firm in
Indianapolis, a restaurant in Milwaukee, a meatpacking company in
Detroit, a factory in Bellwood, Ill.

In the last month, as hundreds of thousands of people around the country
have held demonstrations pressing for legal status and citizenship for
illegal immigrants, companies, particularly those that employ large
numbers of immigrants, have found themselves wrestling with difficult
and uncharted terrain.

They worry about how to keep their businesses operating, fully staffed,
but also not to appear insensitive to a growing political movement that
in many cases sustains their work force.

Some fired workers have complained that they were being singled out for
their political views, and a few have filed formal complaints with the
National Labor Relations Board. Other protesters have cut deals with
their employers to work extra shifts in exchange for time off, or to
close down their small businesses entirely, in deference to the
sentiment behind the demonstrations.

In at least one instance, nearly 200 fired workers in Wisconsin were
reinstated, demonstration leaders said, after the leaders met with
employers, discussed the significance of the protests and threatened to
identify the companies publicly.

"I have no problem with the demonstration, but this is a business," said
Charley Bohley, an owner of Rodes restaurant and fishmarket in Bonita
Springs, who fired the 10 workers there after posting a note warning
employees that they could not miss work for a rally on Monday. "Couldn't
they have protested in the morning before work? Couldn't they have
protested in their hearts?"

Though the number of workers who have lost their jobs across the
country, estimated in the hundreds, is small compared with the numbers
marching in the streets, some protest organizers say word of the firings
spread rapidly and might have a chilling effect on many more workers and
on students, some of whom also say they have faced discipline for
missing school for rallies.

The firings have also forced some organizers to rethink how best to plan
future demonstrations, and some are considering opting out of events now
in the works.

In Washington, Jaime Contreras, the president of the National Capital
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigrat
ion_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> Immigration
Coalition, said his coalition voted on Thursday night not to take part
in a proposed national boycott or strike set for May 1. Jose I. Sanchez,
an organizer in Texas, said his group was considering holding a rally on
the Sunday before May 1 instead, just to avoid such strains.

"We shouldn't put our progress in jeopardy," Mr. Contreras said. "That
is a tool you use when you have to, but you have to be completely
prepared for backlash and repercussions."

In many cities, rally organizers said, plenty of businesses, many of
which have pushed for efforts to give legal status to immigrants,
cooperated with the demonstrations and allowed workers time off. In
Indianapolis, one company went so far as to let 2,000 people leave their
jobs for Monday's demonstration downtown, said Ken Moran, an organizer.

"The firings we've seen were an anomaly," Mr. Moran said, "but it's a
sad situation."

In complaints filed with the government in one case, Mark A. Sweet, a
lawyer for two fired restaurant workers in Milwaukee, said the
restaurant had violated the National Labor Relations Act by firing the
workers for what he considered legally protected activities: efforts to
assist in the mutual aid and protection of themselves and other
immigrant workers.

Other legal experts, however, questioned whether such a provision would
apply to a public rally, and suggested that the workers had few
remedies. For the most part, "at-will" employees may be fired at any
time, for any reason, said Charles B. Craver, a professor at The George
Washington University Law School.

"For private employers, there is normally no special First Amendment
right to get out of work to engage in a protest," said Rodney A. Smolla,
the dean of the University of Richmond School of Law. "A company might
decide that it's good for morale to accommodate the exercise of freedom
of speech on an issue that is very important to people, but that's an
employment judgment not law."

In Tyler, Tex., Maria Rodriguez described on Friday how she and others
had lost their jobs putting together equipment for air-conditioners for
Benchmark Manufacturing Inc. Ms. Rodriguez, 32, who said she had made
$6.75 an hour after several years with the company, said she had always
been given time off in the past for personal appointments. This time,
though, she was fired, she said.

"To me it seemed unfair," Ms. Rodriguez said. Even as she was being
fired, she said, she saw applicants arriving at the company to replace
her.

Benchmark Manufacturing issued a statement outlining the company's
absence policy, and adding, "This issue is not about going to the rally,
it is about following the company policies that govern every employee."

Against the backdrop of the broader immigration debate, the firings
raised another tangled issue for some of the companies and for the
workers: the legal status of those employees removed. Ms. Rodriguez, a
native of Mexico, said she moved to the United States 14 years ago and
did not have legal status. Some other advocates for those fired in other
states said they did not know the legal status of the workers.

Elsewhere, after advocates intervened, some workers were rehired this
week. At Wolverine Packing in Detroit, company officials said they
invited 21 fired workers - 20 of whom were considered temporary workers
- to return to their jobs, with back pay, on Monday. The company,
meanwhile, issued a statement saying it planned to recheck employment
documentation "due to reports that some of the temporary staffers may
have been illegal."

Elena Herrada, who met with the company on behalf of the workers, said
she did not know if any of them were in the United States illegally. The
employees were already unhappy with their working conditions, Ms.
Herrada said, and none were planning to return.

Gretchen Ruethling contributed reporting from Chicagofor this article.


For Immigrants and Business, Rift on Protests

By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/monica_dav
ey/index.html?inline=nyt-per> MONICA DAVEY

In Bonita Springs, Fla., 10 restaurant workers were fired this week
after skipping their shifts to attend a rally against legislation in
Congress cracking down on illegal immigrants. In Tyler, Tex., 22 welders
lost their jobs making parts for air-conditioners after missing work for
a similar demonstration in that city.

And so it went for employees of an asbestos removal firm in
Indianapolis, a restaurant in Milwaukee, a meatpacking company in
Detroit, a factory in Bellwood, Ill.

In the last month, as hundreds of thousands of people around the country
have held demonstrations pressing for legal status and citizenship for
illegal immigrants, companies, particularly those that employ large
numbers of immigrants, have found themselves wrestling with difficult
and uncharted terrain.

They worry about how to keep their businesses operating, fully staffed,
but also not to appear insensitive to a growing political movement that
in many cases sustains their work force.

Some fired workers have complained that they were being singled out for
their political views, and a few have filed formal complaints with the
National Labor Relations Board. Other protesters have cut deals with
their employers to work extra shifts in exchange for time off, or to
close down their small businesses entirely, in deference to the
sentiment behind the demonstrations.

In at least one instance, nearly 200 fired workers in Wisconsin were
reinstated, demonstration leaders said, after the leaders met with
employers, discussed the significance of the protests and threatened to
identify the companies publicly.

"I have no problem with the demonstration, but this is a business," said
Charley Bohley, an owner of Rodes restaurant and fishmarket in Bonita
Springs, who fired the 10 workers there after posting a note warning
employees that they could not miss work for a rally on Monday. "Couldn't
they have protested in the morning before work? Couldn't they have
protested in their hearts?"

Though the number of workers who have lost their jobs across the
country, estimated in the hundreds, is small compared with the numbers
marching in the streets, some protest organizers say word of the firings
spread rapidly and might have a chilling effect on many more workers and
on students, some of whom also say they have faced discipline for
missing school for rallies.

The firings have also forced some organizers to rethink how best to plan
future demonstrations, and some are considering opting out of events now
in the works.

In Washington, Jaime Contreras, the president of the National Capital
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigrat
ion_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> Immigration
Coalition, said his coalition voted on Thursday night not to take part
in a proposed national boycott or strike set for May 1. Jose I. Sanchez,
an organizer in Texas, said his group was considering holding a rally on
the Sunday before May 1 instead, just to avoid such strains.

"We shouldn't put our progress in jeopardy," Mr. Contreras said. "That
is a tool you use when you have to, but you have to be completely
prepared for backlash and repercussions."

In many cities, rally organizers said, plenty of businesses, many of
which have pushed for efforts to give legal status to immigrants,
cooperated with the demonstrations and allowed workers time off. In
Indianapolis, one company went so far as to let 2,000 people leave their
jobs for Monday's demonstration downtown, said Ken Moran, an organizer.

"The firings we've seen were an anomaly," Mr. Moran said, "but it's a
sad situation."

In complaints filed with the government in one case, Mark A. Sweet, a
lawyer for two fired restaurant workers in Milwaukee, said the
restaurant had violated the National Labor Relations Act by firing the
workers for what he considered legally protected activities: efforts to
assist in the mutual aid and protection of themselves and other
immigrant workers.

Other legal experts, however, questioned whether such a provision would
apply to a public rally, and suggested that the workers had few
remedies. For the most part, "at-will" employees may be fired at any
time, for any reason, said Charles B. Craver, a professor at The George
Washington University Law School.

"For private employers, there is normally no special First Amendment
right to get out of work to engage in a protest," said Rodney A. Smolla,
the dean of the University of Richmond School of Law. "A company might
decide that it's good for morale to accommodate the exercise of freedom
of speech on an issue that is very important to people, but that's an
employment judgment not law."

In Tyler, Tex., Maria Rodriguez described on Friday how she and others
had lost their jobs putting together equipment for air-conditioners for
Benchmark Manufacturing Inc. Ms. Rodriguez, 32, who said she had made
$6.75 an hour after several years with the company, said she had always
been given time off in the past for personal appointments. This time,
though, she was fired, she said.

"To me it seemed unfair," Ms. Rodriguez said. Even as she was being
fired, she said, she saw applicants arriving at the company to replace
her.

Benchmark Manufacturing issued a statement outlining the company's
absence policy, and adding, "This issue is not about going to the rally,
it is about following the company policies that govern every employee."

Against the backdrop of the broader immigration debate, the firings
raised another tangled issue for some of the companies and for the
workers: the legal status of those employees removed. Ms. Rodriguez, a
native of Mexico, said she moved to the United States 14 years ago and
did not have legal status. Some other advocates for those fired in other
states said they did not know the legal status of the workers.

Elsewhere, after advocates intervened, some workers were rehired this
week. At Wolverine Packing in Detroit, company officials said they
invited 21 fired workers - 20 of whom were considered temporary workers
- to return to their jobs, with back pay, on Monday. The company,
meanwhile, issued a statement saying it planned to recheck employment
documentation "due to reports that some of the temporary staffers may
have been illegal."

Elena Herrada, who met with the company on behalf of the workers, said
she did not know if any of them were in the United States illegally. The
employees were already unhappy with their working conditions, Ms.
Herrada said, and none were planning to return.

Gretchen Ruethling contributed reporting from Chicagofor this article.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism