Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

But contractors haven't just brought in immigrant labor, they have brought in undocumented ("illegal") immigrant labor. This is as true of contracts for rebuilding Naval facilities as it is for New Orleans and surrounds.

Contractors argue that local labor is not available, but that is the old refrain that masks the real issues - profits and control. Latino migrant labor (both legal and illegal) is being employed in these contracts because the contractors are paying substandard wages, and exploiting the workers. Many of these workers are being paid $8 an hour, working without safety equipment in toxic waste, living under tarps in fields and parks, and sometimes not being paid at all. If they are picked up by immigration and do not have documentation, they are deported without receiving the pay they have earned.

Undocumented and guest workers have little power to complain which is why U.S. employers find them desirable workers. The suspension of Davis-Baker is really not a big deal for those hiring these workers; it simply legitimates the lower wages. With the suspension now removed, the press to use this labor force does and is continuing. These workers won't file a lawsuit for the damages they receive in working without protection in hazardous environments. They won't complain if pay is slow, less than they earned, or even doesn't show up at all. If they do complain they are fired or deported. No skin off the contractor's nose for the abuses, and "plenty more where they came from."

Meanwhile, residents of the area remain unemployed, or far from home. The tax dollars pouring into the area immediately leaves the area in the pockets of the contractors, and the pockets of the immigrant labor force as they move on. This means that while there may be physical rebuilding in the Gulf states, there will be no economic recovery from the estimated $200 BILLION in tax payer money. Just as the use of contractors and immigrant labor in the rebuilding of Iraq continues to leave an unemployment rate of roughly 50% and no economic recovery. The money (our tax dollars) flows directly into the coffers of the big contractors, and the people are left with little to show for the effort. Is it any wonder that contractors are prime targets in Iraq? People are not stupid. They know exactly what is going on - and so do the people of the Gulf states.

A physical rebuilding of the hurricane devastated areas is worthless without an economic rebuilding as well. Louisiana is not going to come out of bankruptcy with this method of doing business. In fact, the money pouring into the state will miss Louisiana (and other impacted areas) almost entirely - even when it comes to taxes on those contractors. They are (largely) from outside the region, and any taxes they pay on their earnings are not likely to go to the impacted state and local coffers.

There has been talk that the new New Orleans will look very different than the old New Orleans. It will be a far less racially diverse and a more wealthy demographic that ultimately returns. Katrina and the policies of rebuilding will see to that. The immigrant labor force will move on - or be moved on. Those who have their own wealth will return. Those who do not will remain part of the diaspora. Those living in trailer cities established by FEMA, will linger there - as they have from previous hurricanes in Florida. They will remain; wanting to go home and restart their lives; unable to do so because they simply can't afford to. They will remain a large displaced population until the government finds it expedient to forget them - after their plight is no longer "news worthy."

This is truly an example of "business as usual." Or perhaps, "business as it has become." Business that exploits and absconds with the assistance of the U.S. government. Business that gets thrown "plums" with no accountability and no payback to the populations actually being served. Business protected on all sides by rule changes and looking the other way.

The Department of Commerce reports that the economy grew at 3.8% in the third quarter of this year. That "growth" does not represent a positive up-tick in people's lives, but it certainly reflects a windfall for corporations. That "growth" is reflected in the huge increase in profits of the energy industry (who Bush wants to assist by further by removing environmental controls and funding construction of new refineries); it is reflected in the billions of dollars flowing into Halliburton and its subsidiaries. It is not a growth in jobs or pay, and it is not a growth that is seen in the increased costs of goods.

To pay further for the money bleeding out of the treasury, the Bush administration and the Republican House and Senate, take aim at programs that serve the people - such as massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. As the transfer of the wealth of the nation continues in plain sight, the legislation is written to strengthen the "intelligence" structure by adding new departments (both under the Director of Intelligence and the Department of Defense) whose eyes and ears are focused on us - the people. It happens as Bush pushes for the right to actively deploy the U.S. military on U.S. soil. They fear that at some point we might wake up to what is going on and get really ticked off, and they want to be prepared to control us when we do. Believe me, they are much more prepared for that than they are for any kind of disaster - natural or otherwise.

The mantra in U.S. capitalism from the 1980s onward has been "what is good for business is good for us." Well, that clearly is not true as we have watched the decline of the political and economic power of the people and the correlating rise in corporate political and economic power. Their "interests" are not our interests, and a government that serves the corporate interests is not serving ours. When corporations merge with the government - as they clearly have - and religion an nationalism become conjoined, it is a sure signal than we have clearly moved from a democratic state to a fascist one (or this take on where we are).

The shenanigans of the Katrina rebuilding are a portrait in failing the people. Immigrant labor is used because employers can avoid many of the "costs" of doing business. Do you really think that if they prefer an exploited labor force that they aren't pushing for removal of the "impediments" that keep them from treating a domestic workforce the same way?

If your feeling is that "it just isn't fair," then I agree. It isn't fair to immigrants being exploited and endangered. It isn't fair to the people of the Gulf states, and it isn't fair to the citizens of the country as the aid we pay for goes into the hands of robber barons. But that is what we have become. That is "business as usual."

See also
10/30/05 The American Daily, US Missile Base Invaded by Illegal Immigrants?

10/25/05 Harrop, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Labor's Hurricane George

Froma Harrop offers a succinct analysis in the Seattle Times:

"There's only one sane explanation of why Bush would try to lower wages in a tight labor market: He intended all along to flood the market with cheap foreign workers.

It's a simple setup: (1) Get rid of Davis-Bacon, so contractors can offer below-market pay that Americans and legal immigrants won't touch; (2) continue to disregard the law that forbids companies to hire undocumented workers; (3) when people complain that the workers restoring New Orleans are not legal, say that they are taking jobs no American wants.

The one price that may never rise, in the Bush mindset, is the price of labor. Companies must cope with rising costs for energy, drugs or land. If they can't deal with it, they go out of business. But cheap labor is somehow an entitlement.

Bush had no problem imposing tariffs on steel to protect domestic companies from foreign competition. But he expects American workers to compete with the several billion people around the world who want their jobs.

Meanwhile, the market for upper-income workers remains protected and respected. All nod in agreement when the hotel executive defends his $10 million pay package as the going rate for a man of his talents. But supply-and-demand explanations never seem to apply to the compensation offered the woman who cleans the rooms."