nettlebed

It looks from this story as though ICE is changing policy from targeting illegals to auditing employers, who then, of course, have massive layoffs.

Haven't sat down and digested in in detail, but it will be very relevant to agriculture here in WA. Most of the workers are actually illegals - it's an open secret here - so there are potentially massive impacts. Particularly interesting is one employer's comment that even though official unemployment in WA is around 10% he's not had a single "U.S American" (his words) stop by to ask for a job.

Of course unemployment is much higher than 10% in the agricultural parts of WA.

Maybe this will portend a massive increase in H-2B workers? The employers don't like the expense and bureaucracy of that, by all accounts, but it might be a potential way to address the impasse.

fatbrit

Not surprising -- he might actually have to pay them a living wage and follow the sparse employment laws.

Brit3964

Three words - Comprehensive Immigration Reform

scrubbedexpat099

We have the same problem here, a lack of reliable conscientious workers willing to work for minimum wages.

Which is why we need a Guest Workers Programme.

fatbrit

That's the last thing we need. In fact it was the only significant portion of the last CIR bill I opposed.

Marocco

Which doesn't imply that the people who work there are illegals.

If non-US-citizens can survive on it, then by definition it is a living wage.

nettlebed

It doesn't imply it: but the majority are. I have a sister-in-law who does social work with agricultural workers both in Eastern and Western WA, and most of them are illegals.

snowbunny

Why should reliable conscientious workers only deserve the minimum wage?

(unless you're taking the piss)

scrubbedexpat099

Deserve?

Sounds socialist.

This is America.

Not every business can afford to pay top rates, benefits etc. Hence the need for guest workers.

ian-mstm

Whoa Nelly! There's a huge difference between "willing to work for minimum wages" and "only deserv[ing] the minimum wage". Whether they deserve higher wages or not isn't part of the equation. If they are willing to work for the wages offered, that's their choice. If they aren't willing to work at that wage, then one of two things will happen... either someone else will step in and work at the offered wage, or no one will work at the offered wage. If someone steps in, then the status quo remains. If no one works at that wage, then the wage will be raised to entice workers or the place will go out of business. This is how things work in a free market economy. So far... the current minimum wage seems to be fine for those "reliable conscientious workers".

Ian

meauxna

IF they live 5 people or more to a room?
IF they cook communally and share transportation?

"Living wage" is a slippery term; the minimum wage in Washington is $8.55/hour. Full time employment comes out at just over $1000/month.
Is that a 'living wage'?
Washington's minimum wage is pretty good. The federal rate is $7.25/hr.

snowbunny

If they don't pay taxes on it and are willing to live in conditions marginally better than they left behind in Central and South America, sure.

A I

Ian, I offer you a few more choices in what can happen when nobody steps up to do the job at the offered rate...


1) The employer moves production to another county/city/state/country where he can get employees at the offered rate.(India Call Center/Clothes Manufacturing in China ring a bell ?)

1) The employer buys the product/service from another supplier who can make it at the price, and just resells. Private label Manufacturing in China/India as well)

2) The employer buys machines that increase productivity to reduce employee number and maintain same $$ output. (i work in the Financial Industry. We just a got a brand spanking new scanner that reduced by a third the number of people required to process the volume of items we had in this particular process. about 7 jobs will be lost, although they will be dedicated to other tasks. the jobs to be filled were open jobs we were hiring for, so there are 7 less jobs available because of this machine)

3) Employer re-labels the position as independent contractor, and pays by result, as opposed to time spent. It's a sneaky way to get around paying minimum wage. This one only shifts the issue one level down, but also shifts responsibility for enforcement of i-9 regulation, so even thought the issue is still present, the employer is happy and "safe"

4)Employers has been doing this for a while, and just decides it's not worth it anymore and closes, everyone looses their jobs. New jobs may become available with the competition. (Somebody needs to fill the need left behind)

Ginblossom

A family member of mine who is a USC worked for a national food producer in LA. ICE came in, busted half of the department, the co. then shut the entire plant down. Everyone kicked out of work.

That sucked hard. But, from a practical sense, chasing individuals doesn't work. Only killing the source of the employment does.

ian-mstm

I was thinking of only one thing - bracero... but you've certainly added some good points!

Ian