Thread: Enforcement Works [Mark Krikorian]

Thursday, March 19, 2009



Enforcement Works [Mark Krikorian]


We have a report out today by Jerry Kammer (who shared the Pulitzer for breaking the Duke Cunningham story) on the aftermath of the 2006 immigration raids on six Swift meatpacking plants. He estimated that 23 percent of the plants' workforce were illegals. After these "essential workers" were arrested (or fled), did the plants shut down?

All facilities resumed production on the same day as the raids. All returned to full production within five months. This is an indication that the plants could operate at full capacity without the presence of illegal workers.

OK, but there couldn't have been any legal workers to do these "Jobs Americans Won't Do," right?

There is good evidence that after the raids the number of native-born workers increased significantly. But Swift would not provide information on how its workforce has changed. Swift also has recruited a large number of refugees who are legal immigrants.

How'd all that happen?

At the four facilities for which we were able to obtain information, wages and bonuses rose on average 8 percent with the departure of illegal immigrants.

You don't say? Anything else?

In addition to pay increases, Swift introduced a number of methods to attract workers after the raids. The company paid bonuses to new employees, and to current employees who recruited others. It also advertised heavily, paid relocation expenses, and provided daily transportation from distant population centers.

But wouldn't that make meat unaffordable?

Worker pay has a small impact on consumer prices. Research by the USDA and others indicates that wages and benefits for production workers account for only 7 to 9 percent of retail meat prices. This means that if wages and benefits were increased by one-third, consumer prices would rise by 3 percent at most.

Research by the United Food and Commercial Workers union indicates that pay to production workers accounts for only about 4 percent of consumer costs. If that is correct, a 50 percent increase in wages would cause only a 2 percent increase in consumer prices.

So how about "temporary" worker programs — aren't they an ideal solution, since when workers are finished they leave and are never heard from again?

The Swift plants in Marshalltown, Iowa, and Hyrum, Utah, illustrate the immigration connections that were established during the 1942-1964 era of the braceros and extended through the 1986 amnesty. Many relatives and neighbors of former braceros now work at Swift plants.

So what's the point of having these foreign workers?

Like the rest of the industry, workers at these facilities have seen a steady decline in their standard of living. Government data show that the average wages of meatpackers in 2007 were 45 percent lower than in 1980, adjusted for inflation.

Oh, I get it.


03/19 02:00 PM


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... U0ZWRmZTI=

"But wouldn't that make meat unaffordable?

"Worker pay has a small impact on consumer prices. Research by the USDA and others indicates that wages and benefits for production workers account for only 7 to 9 percent of retail meat prices. This means that if wages and benefits were increased by one-third, consumer prices would rise by 3 percent at most.

"Research by the United Food and Commercial Workers union indicates that pay to production workers accounts for only about 4 percent of consumer costs. If that is correct, a 50 percent increase in wages would cause only a 2 percent increase in consumer prices."


Wouldn't this also apply to the threat about "$5.00 a head lettuce" that is always used by Big Agriculture in rationalizing why they must have illegal foreign farm labor?