Thread: Leisure Industry Considers New Idea (For It)—Hiring Americ

Leisure Industry Considers New Idea (For It)—Hiring Americans!
By Joe Guzzardi

For most Americans, cherry blossoms, warmer days and longer nights mark spring’s arrival.

In the patriotic immigration reform movement, however, we know spring is here when the Chamber of Commerce and small businesses start to whine about the lack of seasonal workers and the urgent need to issue more H-2B visas.

You know what will happen if the visas aren’t forthcoming—beds won’t get made, drinks won’t get poured, tables won’t be cleared and fruit will rot in the fields!

After a while—like ten years—this becomes comically boring to read about. None of it ever comes true.

But as indicated by a recent New York Times story (originally introduced to you by Brenda Walker in her blog here), the Main Stream Media never finds it too tedious to write about.[Businesses Face Cut In Immigrant Work Force, By Katie Zezima, New York Times, March 14, 2008]

Interestingly, Zezima’s Times story takes us back to Cape Cod, the scene of two 2004 columns I wrote debunking the claim that no visas equals no boiled lobsters. Read them here and here. (And hear Patti Page sing “Old Cape Codâ€

[quote]No one single retiree is looking to supplement his income in this economy? That’s hard to believe! And as for the suggestion that hotel and restaurant work is “too physical,â€

My rant of the day:

Before you read, do be aware that not all here have a political orientation which is strongly conservative on all fronts. For me, I am fairly socially conservative, but moderate or even progressive on economic issues. Having said that, now read on...

Joe Guzzardi touches on the real underlying problem with the current state of affairs in regard to hiring practices, the supposed need for temporary guest workers, and, even labor policy in general. In the last 20 years or so, business (largely big business) has lobbied the Fed Govt to make labor more 'flexible' by generally loosening labor laws (and, as a side benefit, to make labor cheaper of course). This has been done largely through changes in laws governing hiring, firing (at-will employment), job classifications (full-time vs. part-time), transfers, benefits, etc.

The presumption being that having absolute control over the workforce would necessarily translate into lower labor costs. Well, to some extent, the policies have succeeded. But at what cost? Now, the 'flexibilization' has produced: a greater number of working families having even more precarious an existence (paycheck-to-paycheck), with more folks without benefits (especially medical), people having to work a second job, little national net savings, etc.

But, at the same time, the dominant political powers have seen fit to reward the ultra wealthy with [what I contend, are undeserved] tax breaks (which, I'll add are paid by <someone>, <somewhere>...), have provided the administrative ability to ship jobs overseas - and (again), send taxpayers most of the bill, have allowed the importation of a poverty-stricken underclass to replace blue-collar American workers, etc.

So what has the long-standing policy of throwing tax breaks, public investment dollars and lower labor costs at rich people actually produced? The primary answer is: richer rich people, and a greater number of poor and marginal people. In contrast to the claim the rich folks are our saving grace, their arrogance is killing our middle and working classes.
The balance of power between average worker vs. corporate CEOs, wealthy investors and business owners in general has shifted strongly against working people. And, no matter how a person wants to characterize state of affairs, it is not good for the country. Now, wind the clock forward 5, 10 or 20 years, and what do you see?


Let me conclude with a personal anecdotal story: We have a friend of the family - whom I would call a 'die-hard libertarian capitalist' - that proudly proclaims that "greed is good". I respond with: "innovation, hard-work, honesty and lawfulness are good, sheer greed, is bad". Using the suitably low standard of: 'greed is good', one could easily justify slavery, corporate monopolies, human trafficking, the sale of illegal drugs, etc.

Still not convinced?
OK, answer me this question. We all know that longevity and expected lifespan are considered good surrogates for the health (and wealth) of a nation's population. We used to rank in the top 10 about as recently as 10 or 15 years ago. Anybody want to guess how the US ranks with respect to expected longevity overall today? Most Americans are SHOCKED when they learn the answer (hint: we're not in the top 10 anymore, but we still are in the top 50).


Recommended reading:

Lou Dobbs "War on the Middle Class"
Michael Parenti "Democracy for the Few"

Now, the 'flexibilization' has produced: a greater number of working families having even more precarious an existence (paycheck-to-paycheck), with more folks without benefits (especially medical), people having to work a second job, little national net savings, etc.

That has been the biggest killer for me and for marraiges and families. Sometimes this demand for "flexibility" has led to nothing but 100% chaos and instability. My time in Florida was such a nightmare trying to be "flexible" to have a job...yet made life for the family and me absolute chaos. They wanted to own you 24/7.....at their beck and call....yet couldn't offer even the slightest routien to have an ounce of consistancy in our lives. Heck.....we never had a holiday, vacation or anything. When the kids were off school.....that was a definate no vacation time at work. When I needed the money for school or taxes or any holiday.....the hours were cut. I couldn't even make a Dr's appointment and know if I'd get to keep it without threat of loosing my job.....because every week the schedual was different and up for change without notice. Heck you couldn't be sure you'd get off when they said you would....or not sent home early when you planned to be there. Ask for it off and you had a 50-50 chance....then1/2 that time they would say yes and then change it to no the day before......I will never forget hearing my boss talk to a district manager. There was a woman going through heck....divorce...moved to work there and hadn't had time to even un-pack....she asked for a weekend off....they said ok. The boss thought it was funny and told the dist. manager to watch......went up to her and said there were schedualing problems and she had to be there. She started to cry and he said fine....have to have it off.....you can have the rest of your life off and stormed away. She of course appologised, begged for her job back and came to work. He said I have my employees trained. They do what I want because for every 1 of them....there's 100 more for each position...everyone is expendable. That's when I knew being honest, hard-working, dependable and all that didn't mean a thing. Sure wasn't what my Dad taught me and I've been lost since.

crazybird - Hey, I feel for you. I think we've all had our bump up against the system as it degenerates....

What they want, but don't have the, uh-hum "guts" to say is: slavery. Employers want people for low-cost, with no power, total subservient to private authority, earning just enough to survive - but, by no means prosper, etc... they want slaves.

I think there really are two issues here:

I believe the H-2B Visas program for seasonal workers is a relatively small and successful program which for years has brought the same workers from the Caribbean and Mexico, for example, to shuck oysters and crabs, so vital in Maryland, for example, for several months each year, after which, unlike agricultural and other guestworkers, they really do return home. These also are an example of jobs U.S. citizens will not do. I believe these worker often live in dormitories provided by their employer.

However, certainly teenagers did use to work in restaurants and resorts all over the U.S. in the summer, and do farm work in New England, but my personal knowledge of this is many years old!

Our real problems seem to be:

1) That large fast food, restuarant, and hotel chains have deliberately made a policy of replacing permanent U.S. workers of all ages across the board with cheaper foreign labor without regard to the legality of this work force, and

2) The Hispanic Congressional Caucus is holding this small and evidentally productive H-2B Visas program "captive" in order to force "comprehensive immigration reform" upon the Congress!

It seems to me as counter-productive for us to be as inflexible about individual visa programs as the opposition is about blanket amnesty. If the Hispanic Caucus has chosen H-2B Visas as the one program to target if they do not get their amnesty, then perhaps that is because this is one foreign guest worker program which really is necessary in many cases, and which really works and adds to the economy of the regions where these workers serve, and thus to the economy as a whole.

In the '60's there were public figures known as "knee jerk liberals" and "knee jerk conservatives". It seems to me that we might want to think before having the same "knee jerk (negative) reaction" to this small H-2B Visas program as we do to the really dangerous H-1A program, for example. However, since I know I will be corrected, I stand ready to be.