The programs will teach immigrants, and this includes both illegal and legal immigrants, about their rights to engage in union organizing in the U.S. as part of the national Labor Relations Board’s efforts in getting immigrants involved in union activism.
The five-member National Labor Relations Board is the governing body that enforces the National Labor Relations Act enacted in 1935 to protect employees and employers in this country. In 2013, while Lafe Solomon was the board’s acting general counsel, he signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) with Mexico.
Now, we have been told the current general counsel, Richard Griffin, also signed memorandums of Understanding with Ecuador and the Philippines last year. “Those (three countries) are the only countries that the NLRB has MOUs with,” said spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek.
The Memorandums of Understanding are similar in their wording
The memorandums are basically similar in their wording, whole sections being repeated verbatim. All three of the M0Us state the main goal is “to educate those who may not be aware of the Act, including those employees just entering the workforce, by providing information designed to clearly inform [that nation’s] workers in the United States of America their rights under the Act and to develop ways of communicating such information (e.g., via print and electronic media, electronic assistance tools, mobile device applications, and links to the NLRB’s website from the [country’s] websites) to the … workers residing in the United States of America and their employers.”
The possible darker side of the agreements
The Washington Examiner cites the NLRB as saying the Labor Relations Act does include illegal immigrants and outlines their protections under the laws. Interestingly, if an employer fires an illegal immigrant, which, by the way, is required under federal law, the employer can also be brought up on charges by the NLRB if it is decided the employee was fired because of his or her union activism.
Even more interesting is that the agreements allow the foreign consulates to help in finding illegal immigrants in the U.S. . “who might aid the NLRB in investigations, trials or compliance matters” involving businesses violating the Labor Relations Act, as well as helping to develop a system where complaints from immigrant workers are referred to the NRLB’s regional offices.
Griffin offered testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on March 24, 2015, and he said the main focus of the MoUs was to ” strengthen collaborative efforts to provide foreign business owners doing business in the United States, as well as workers from those countries, with education, guidance and access to information regarding their rights and responsibilities under our statute.”
Why just these three countries?
These three countries are representative of a very small number of foreign companies doing business in the United States, so why in the world does the NLRB think it needs to have special agreements with them? The Bureau of Economic Analysis produced figures for November 2014 that showed Mexican businesses operating in the U.S. employed less than 69,000 workers. The figures for Ecuadorean and Philippine businesses operating in the U.S. in November were so low the bureau doesn’t even publish measurements for them.
Of the three countries in question, Mexico and the Philippines have the most immigrants in the U.S., with Mexico having over 11.6 million immigrants, more than any single country, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The Philippines is fourth, with 1.6 million people living in the U.S.
Last month, Griffin announced a new policy that said the NLRB would step in and help an illegal immigrant to get a visa so that person could pursue a lawsuit against an American business for firing them because of “union activism.” The policy is a strong incentive for illegal immigrants to engage in labor activism, because if they do, employers will be reluctant to fire them and potentially, even get them a visa, and legal status, if they are fired.
The burning question is this: What do you think of a policy that teaches legal and illegal immigrants how to participate in union activism, and further, a policy that sanctions employers if they fire an illegal immigrant?